BETA


Events

2011/05/06
   EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2010/12/16
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2010/12/16
   EP - Decision by Parliament
Details

The European Parliament adopted a resolution on a new strategy for Afghanistan.

It believes that the EU strategy for Afghanistan should have to take as its starting point two premises :

an acknowledgement of the continuing deterioration in security and socio-economic indicators in Afghanistan despite almost a decade of international involvement and investment; and the need to further encourage the shift in the mindset of the international community so that in future its plans and decisions are shaped in close cooperation with the Afghans.

Parliament stresses that any long-term solution to the Afghan crisis has to start from the resolution of the problems relating to internal security, civil protection and economic and social development. Members are aware of the set of factors hampering progress in Afghanistan but has chosen to focus on four main areas where, it believes, efforts expended could result in improvements: international aid and coordination; the implications of the peace process; the impact of police training; and the elimination of opium cultivation through alternative development. Parliament reiterates that the EU and its Member States should support Afghanistan in the reconstruction of its own state, with stronger democratic institutions capable of ensuring national sovereignty, security based on a democratically accountable army and police, a competent and independent judiciary, state unity, territorial integrity, equality between men and women, media freedom, an emphasis on education and health, sustainable economic development and the prosperity of the people of Afghanistan, and respect for the historical, religious, spiritual and cultural traditions and rights of all communities on Afghan territory.

To create a dynamic in Afghanistan, Parliament supports the idea of a special long-term flagship programme focusing on priorities identified by the Afghans themselves. It stresses the need to ensure a sustainable improvement in women’s lives by ensuring they can enjoy full fundamental, political, civil and social rights, protection against the fundamentalists and any other discriminatory practices. There is also a need to increase the level of funding and political and technical support for policies to improve the situation of Afghan women.

On the political level , the resolution notes that the parliamentary elections on 18 September 2010 were marred by fraud and violence and that many Afghans have been prevented from exercising their fundamental right to vote. Parliament also deplores the irregularities in the country’s judicial processes and the continued existence of the death penalty.

As regards the four main areas, Parliament outlines the following:

1) International aid – use and abuse: the resolution recalls that the combined EU (European Community and Member States) budget for aid to Afghanistan for the period 2002-2010 totalled around EUR 8 billion. However, despite the huge injections of foreign aid, the situation in Afghanistan continues to be discouraging and, since 2004, the number of people living below the poverty threshold has increased by 130%.

It acknowledges the widespread perception that Afghan Government corruption is solely responsible for the lack of provision of essential services to citizens, but also notes that the majority of resources for socio-economic development have been channelled through international organisations (regional development banks, NGOs, etc). Parliament condemns the fact that a significant proportion of European and other international aid money is lost along the distribution chain and draws attention to the four main ways in which this happens: waste, excessive intermediary and security costs, overbilling and corruption.

Measures such as the following need to be taken:

strengthening of the transparency and accountability of financial assistance granted to the Afghan government, to local and international NGOs; humanitarian aid to be distributed on a geographically more homogenous basis, in the light of an analysis of needs and in keeping with the requirement for urgency; combating of corruption since it is an obstacle in terms of access to basic public services, such as health and education, and represents a huge impediment to the country’s socio-economic development (only USD 6 billion (or 15%) out of a total of USD 40 billion in aid actually reached the Afghan Government between 2002 and 2009, and that, of the remaining USD 34 billion, which was channelled through international organisations, regional development banks, NGOs, international contractors, etc., between 70% and 80% never reached the intended beneficiaries). Parliament notes the decision taken at the Kabul Conference that 50% of the international aid should be channelled through the Afghan national budget by 2012, in accordance with Afghanistan's request; strengthening of the coordination between donor countries and provide for detailed evaluations of European and international aid; setting up a centralised database on, and to analyse the costs and impact of, all EU aid to Afghanistan; pruning drastically the operating expenses of humanitarian and development bodies active in Afghanistan whereby the EU in allocating funds to concrete projects implemented in real and balanced partnership with Afghan institutions.

Overall, Parliament calls for aid to Afghanistan to be dispatched directly to the population in Afghanistan immediately affected . In this regard, impartial humanitarian bodies should be responsible for the distribution of aid in the country and military personnel should be involved only in entirely exceptional circumstances.

Contrary to the committee responsible’s opinion, Plenary reject the idea that the deployment of Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) in reconstruction and/or development-aid activities is inappropriate.

Parliament draws attention to the huge cost of the war prosecuted in Afghanistan between 2001 and 2009, estimated at over USD 300 billion and equivalent to more than 20 times Afghanistan's GDP. It also notes that the decision to place the US military supply chain in private hands without any reliable criteria for assuring accountability, transparency and legality is fuelling extortion and corruption, as warlords, local mafia bosses and ultimately Taliban commanders end up taking a significant share of the USD 2.2-3 billion business of military logistics in Afghanistan.

2) The peace process: recalling the absolute necessity for good governance in Afghanistan, Parliament calls for fundamental judicial reform in the country. It considers that that much of the blame for the present stalemate in Afghanistan rests with early miscalculations made prior to the new counter-insurgency strategy by coalition forces who foresaw a speedy military victory over the Taliban and an easy transition to a stable country run by a legitimate government with strong Western backing. It believes that the presence of the Taliban was underestimated and the ability of the Karzai government to provide governance overestimated, and that, as a result, little attention was paid to the task of rebuilding and developing the country. In this context, they call for new measures to be taken which may be summarised as follows:

promote a transition using an approach that is more civil and less military; favour a political approach involving negotiations with the Taliban and other combatant groups, as well as other political players in the country who are ready to participate in a government of national unity capable of putting an end to the war; banish from the country Al-Qaeda and its promotion of international terrorism, as well as any other terrorist group; action to eliminate poppy cultivation.

Parliament notes the complexity of the conflict and the key role Pakistan plays in this context. Plenary also notes the involvement of the Pakistan Intelligence Service (ISI) aimed at making sure that Pakistan, too, gets a satisfactory outcome from any peace dividend. Parliament stresses, however, that for peace to be allowed to take root in Afghanistan political deals among key regional powers, including India, Pakistan, Iran and the Central Asian States, Russia, China and Turkey will be required, and a common position of non-interference and support for an independent Afghanistan. It also calls for normalisation of the relationship between Afghanistan and Pakistan, namely through a final settlement on the issue of the international border between the two countries.

In parallel, Members call for a much more active EU role in the reconstruction and development of Afghanistan. In an oral amendment adopted in plenary, Parliament urges the EU and its Member States to work together with the United States to channel more of the international aid effort through domestic authorities and the Kabul Government, and to ensure that drones, special forces and local militias against Taliban leaders are used according to General Petraeus’ orders for zero tolerance on the loss of innocent civilians’ lives.

Plenary pays tribute to the servicemen and women of all the Allied Forces who have lost their lives in defending freedom, and expresses its condolences to their families, as well as to the families of all innocent Afghan victims.

Members recall that the US has stated that it will start to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan in summer 2011, other countries have either already withdrawn or are making plans to do so, and others still have not indicated an intention to withdraw; whereas, however, the withdrawal of the military has to be a gradual and coordinated process in the framework of a political project that guarantees a smooth transition of responsibility to the Afghan security forces.

3) Police and the rule of law: Parliament stresses that Afghanistan must be provided with an efficient police force and an autonomous army capable of ensuring security so as to permit a subsequent withdrawal of the foreign military presence from the country. It recognises, however, that having self-sustaining security forces is a somewhat long-term goal. There is a particular need for a more coordinated and integrated approach in the training of police, as well as, separately, the training of army officers, and for closer coordination of their work in order to avoid unnecessary duplication. Several measures are proposed:

a comprehensive reform of the Interior Ministry; strengthening of the mandate of EUPOL; more coherent and sustainable training of the police by focussing in particular on literacy programmes for recruits; an immediate end to police training by private contractors; the introduction of a large-scale police training programme launched by EUPOL and NATO/ISAF; increase significantly the number of police trainers on the ground so that the objective of the London Conference to reach 134 000 trained Afghan police officers by the end of 2011 becomes a realistic scenario, and, in this context, merge Member States’ bilateral police training missions with that of EUPOL; give preference to recruits with a basic standard of literacy who are not drug users and are better qualified psychologically and physically than the present cohort.

The resolution stresses that police training cannot deliver without a properly functioning judiciary. It is, therefore, necessary to provide increased financial and technical support to strengthen the judicial system, including an increase in the salary of judges at all levels and the putting in place, in coordination with the UN, of a specialised mission to train judges, as well as public officials in the Afghan Ministry of Justice and the penal system.

4) Narcotics: Parliament points out that Afghanistan is the source of 90% of the world’s illicit opium , and yet that when coalition forces entered Kabul, in 2001, no opium poppies were being grown in Afghanistan owing to the UN’s success in achieving a ban on their cultivation. As a result of the impunity given to growers and traffickers, within two years, cultivation reached pre-2001 levels. According to Members, a large, well-resourced military force should, subsequently, have found it easy to sustain this opium-free situation through local agricultural development projects, protected by its troops against the Taliban and local warlords. Members note, however, that opium production is still a key social, economic and security issue, and calls on the EU to consider this as a strategic priority in its policies towards Afghanistan.

They also point out that more than 90% of heroin in Europe originates from Afghanistan and that the cost to public health in European countries runs into billions of dollars. They emphasise that the challenges posed by the drug economy in Afghanistan must be tackled not only nationally but internationally by addressing all links in the drug chain and that this requires, in particular:

assistance to farmers to reduce supply; drug prevention and treatment to curb demand; law enforcement against the intermediaries; massive investment in the establishment of a comprehensive agricultural and rural policy to offer opium producers a credible, lasting alternative; targeted measures to reduce the number of drug addicts in Afghanistan itself.

Members point out that, in 2009 trade in narcotics totalled USD 3.4 billion and the potential gross export value of opium was 26% of Afghanistan’s GDP. They indicate that the Taliban net only 4% of the profits from the annual narcotics trade, and local farmers 21%, with 75% going to government officials, the police, local and regional brokers, and traffickers. It notes, in short, that NATO’s Afghan allies are in fact getting the lion’s share of the profits from the drugs trade .

Parliament recalls that, between 2001 and 2009, the US and the international community spent USD 1.61 billion on counter-narcotics measures without having any significant impact on production and trafficking. It points out that, unless the dependence of the Afghan economy on drugs is ended once and for all and a viable alternative economic growth model found, the goals of restoring security and stability to the region will not be achieved. It calls for other sources of viable revenue to be made available to the 3.4 million Afghans who make their living from opium poppy cultivation, such as saffron or pomegranates, which deliver a much higher income than opium poppies. Members consider that, as in Pakistan, Laos and Thailand, a similar process of phasing out opium poppy cultivation could be envisaged for Afghanistan at a cost of EUR 100 million per year by specifically earmarking 10% of the EU’s annual aid to the country for a period of five years. They call for a five-year national plan for the elimination of illicit opium crops , promoted through cooperation between the EU and the Russian Federation, the latter being the major victim of Afghan heroin.

The resolution highlights that some poppy eradication in Afghanistan has been carried out using chemical herbicides, and this practice results in serious harm to people and to the environment in terms of soil and water pollution. However, there is now a consensus on the need to concentrate repressive measures on the drug trade and heroin-producing labs, and not on farmers.

To conclude, Parliament calls on the Council and the Commission to incorporate this proposed strategy fully into their existing strategies and to take the proposal fully into account within their own national plans and to take full account of all the budgetary implications of the proposals contained in this resolution.

Documents
2010/12/16
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2010/12/15
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2010/12/13
   CSL - Debate in Council
Details

Following the discussion by development ministers of 9 December 2010 on the EU-Afghanistan strategy, the Council exchanged views on the political situation in Afghanistan after the elections.

It underlined the EU's commitment and the need for long-term engagement, expressing appreciation for the work of EU Special Representative Vygaudas Ušackas.

It looked at the specific areas where the EU can apply its strengths:

justice sector, human and notably women's rights, civil service reform; electoral reform; police reform - with EUPOL Afghanistan playing an important role - as the main priorities.

Documents
2010/12/13
   CSL - Council Meeting
2010/11/22
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
Documents
2010/11/22
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary
Documents
2010/11/18
   EP - ARLACCHI Pino (S&D) appointed as rapporteur in AFET
2010/11/09
   EP - Vote in committee
Details

The Committee on Foreign Affairs adopted an own-initiative report by Pino ARLACCHI (S&D, IT) on a new strategy for Afghanistan.

Members believe that the EU strategy for Afghanistan should have to take as its starting point two premise s:

an acknowledgement of the continuing deterioration in security and socio-economic indicators in Afghanistan despite almost a decade of international involvement and investment; and the need to further encourage the shift in the mindset of the international community so that in future its plans and decisions are shaped in close cooperation with the Afghans.

Members stress that any long-term solution to the Afghan crisis has to start from the resolution of the problems relating to internal security, civil protection and economic and social development. In this context, concrete measures need to be taken for the eradication of poverty, under-development and discrimination against women, for enhancing respect for human rights and the rule of law, strengthening reconciliation mechanisms, ensuring an end to opium production, engaging in a robust state-building exercise, as well as banishing Al-Quaeda from the country.

They reiterate that the EU and its Member States should support Afghanistan in the reconstruction of its own state, with stronger democratic institutions capable of ensuring national sovereignty, security based on a democratically accountable army and police, a competent and independent judiciary, state unity, territorial integrity, equality between men and women, media freedom, an emphasis on education and health, sustainable economic development and the prosperity of the people of Afghanistan, and respect for the historical, religious, spiritual and cultural traditions and rights of all communities on Afghan territory.

To create a dynamic in Afghanistan, members support the idea of a special long-term flagship programme focusing on priorities identified by the Afghans themselves.

Members stress the need to ensure a sustainable improvement in women’s lives by ensuring they can enjoy full fundamental, political, civil and social rights, protection against the fundamentalists and any other discriminatory practices. There is also a need to increase the level of funding and political and technical support for policies to improve the situation of Afghan women.

On the political level, Members note that the parliamentary elections on 18 September 2010 were marred by fraud and violence and that many Afghans have been prevented from exercising their fundamental right to vote. They also deplore the irregularities in the country’s judicial processes and the continued existence of the death penalty.

The report also stresses the need for fundamental reforms in the country. These should focus on the following four main areas: i) international aid and coordination; ii) the implications of the peace process; iii) the impact of police training; and iv) the elimination of opium cultivation through alternative development.

The committee’s proposal on these areas are as follows:

1) International aid – use and abuse: Members recall that the combined EU (European Community and Member States) budget for aid to Afghanistan for the period 2002-2010 totalled around EUR 8 billion. However, despite the huge injections of foreign aid, the situation in Afghanistan continues to be discouraging and, since 2004, the number of people living below the poverty threshold has increased by 130%. Measures such as the following need to be taken:

strengthening of the transparency and accountability of financial assistance granted to the Afghan government, to local and international NGOs; humanitarian aid to be distributed on a geographically more homogenous basis, in the light of an analysis of needs and in keeping with the requirement for urgency; combating of corruption since it is an obstacle in terms of access to basic public services, such as health and education, and represents a huge impediment to the country’s socio-economic development (only USD 6 billion (or 15%) out of a total of USD 40 billion in aid actually reached the Afghan Government between 2002 and 2009, and that, of the remaining USD 34 billion, which was channelled through international organisations, regional development banks, NGOs, international contractors, etc., between 70% and 80% never reached the intended beneficiaries); strengthening of the coordination between donor countries and provide for detailed evaluations of European and international aid; setting up a centralised database on, and to analyse the costs and impact of, all EU aid to Afghanistan; pruning drastically the operating expenses of humanitarian and development bodies active in Afghanistan whereby the EU in allocating funds to concrete projects implemented in real and balanced partnership with Afghan institutions; improving the coordination of reconstruction and development efforts at regional level in order to promote cross-border development; carrying out of an evaluation of the relative impact of EU measures on the overall situation in the country and of the level of coordination and cooperation between EU bodies and other international missions and measures.

Overall, Members call for aid to Afghanistan to be dispatched directly to the population in Afghanistan immediately affected . In this regard, impartial humanitarian bodies should be responsible for the distribution of aid in the country and military personnel should be involved only in entirely exceptional circumstances. They stress that the deployment of Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) in reconstruction and/or development-aid activities is inappropriate since the distinction between civilian development-aid workers and the military is thereby blurred. They also note that the decision to place the US military supply chain in private hands and are appalled that protection money and extortion at every level of the military supply chain constitute the most significant source of funding for the insurgency. They are equally appalled by the fact that the full traceability of EU financial contributions might not be fully guaranteed in all cases.

2) The peace process: recalling the absolute necessity for good governance in Afghanistan, Members calls for fundamental judicial reform in the country. They consider that that much of the blame for the present stalemate in Afghanistan rests with early miscalculations made prior to the new counter-insurgency strategy by coalition forces who foresaw a speedy military victory over the Taliban and an easy transition to a stable country run by a legitimate government with strong Western backing. They believe that the presence of the Taliban was underestimated and the ability of the Karzai government to provide governance overestimated, and that, as a result, little attention was paid to the task of rebuilding and developing the country. In this context, they call for new measures to be taken which may be summarised as follows:

promote a transition using an approach that is more civil and less military; favour a political approach involving negotiations with the Taliban and other combatant groups, as well as other political players in the country who are ready to participate in a government of national unity capable of putting an end to the war; banish from the country Al-Qaeda and its promotion of international terrorism, as well as any other terrorist group; action to eliminate poppy cultivation.

Members also note the complexity of the conflict and the key role played by Pakistan in this regard. They condemn in the strongest terms the involvement of the Pakistan Intelligence Service (ISI) with the insurgency, its intention being to make sure that Pakistan, too, gets a satisfactory outcome from any peace dividend. They stress, however, that for peace to be allowed to take root in Afghanistan political deals among key regional powers, including India, Pakistan, Iran and the Central Asian States, Russia, China and Turkey will be required, and a common position of non-interference and support for an independent Afghanistan. They also calls for normalisation of the relationship between Afghanistan and Pakistan, namely through a final settlement on the issue of the international border between the two countries.

In parallel, Members call for a much more active EU role in the reconstruction and development of Afghanistan. Working with the Member States and the United States, this should channel more of the international aid effort through domestic authorities and the Kabul government. It should also encourage the US to move away from its policy of circumventing domestic institutions in the delivery of international aid and the use of US Special Forces and local militias, such approaches being of questionable legal status.

3) Police and the rule of law : Members stress that Afghanistan must be provided with an efficient police force and an autonomous army capable of ensuring security so as to permit a subsequent withdrawal of the foreign military presence from the country. They recognise, however, that having self-sustaining security forces is a somewhat long-term goal. There is a particular need for a more coordinated and integrated approach in the training of police, as well as, separately, the training of army officers, and for closer coordination of their work in order to avoid unnecessary duplication. Several measures are proposed:

a comprehensive reform of the Interior Ministry; strengthening of the mandate of EUPOL; more coherent and sustainable training of the police by focussing in particular on literacy programmes for recruits; an immediate end to police training by private contractors; the introduction of a large-scale police training programme launched by EUPOL and NATO/ISAF; increase significantly the number of police trainers on the ground so that the objective of the London Conference to reach 134 000 trained Afghan police officers by the end of 2011 becomes a realistic scenario, and, in this context, merge Member States’ bilateral police training missions with that of EUPOL; give preference to recruits with a basic standard of literacy who are not drug users and are better qualified psychologically and physically than the present cohort.

Members stress that police training cannot deliver without a properly functioning judiciary. It is, therefore, necessary to provide increased financial and technical support to strengthen the judicial system, including an increase in the salary of judges at all levels and the putting in place, in coordination with the UN, of a specialised mission to train judges, as well as public officials in the Afghan Ministry of Justice and the penal system.

4) Narcotics: Members point out that Afghanistan is the source of 90% of the world’s illicit opium, and yet that when coalition forces entered Kabul, in 2001, no opium poppies were being grown in Afghanistan owing to the UN’s success in achieving a ban on their cultivation. As a result of the impunity given to growers and traffickers, within two years, cultivation reached pre-2001 levels. According to Members, a large, well-resourced military force should, subsequently, have found it easy to sustain this opium-free situation through local agricultural development projects, protected by its troops against the Taliban and local warlords. They note, however, that opium production is still a key social, economic and security issue, and calls on the EU to consider this as a strategic priority in its policies towards Afghanistan.

Members also point out that more than 90% of heroin in Europe originates from Afghanistan and that the cost to public health in European countries runs into billions of dollars. They emphasise that the challenges posed by the drug economy in Afghanistan must be tackled not only nationally but internationally by addressing all links in the drug chain and that this requires, in particular:

assistance to farmers to reduce supply; drug prevention and treatment to curb demand; law enforcement against the intermediaries; massive investment in the establishment of a comprehensive agricultural and rural policy to offer opium producers a credible, lasting alternative; targeted measures to reduce the number of drug addicts in Afghanistan itself.

Members point out that, in 2009 trade in narcotics totalled USD 3.4 billion and the potential gross export value of opium was 26% of Afghanistan’s GDP. They indicate that the Taliban net only 4% of the profits from the annual narcotics trade, and local farmers 21%, with 75% going to government officials, the police, local and regional brokers, and traffickers. It notes, in short, that NATO’s Afghan allies are in fact getting the lion’s share of the profits from the drugs trade .

Members recall that, between 2001 and 2009, the US and the international community spent USD 1.61 billion on counter-narcotics measures without having any significant impact on production and trafficking. They point out that, unless the dependence of the Afghan economy on drugs is ended once and for all and a viable alternative economic growth model found, the goals of restoring security and stability to the region will not be achieved. They call for other sources of viable revenue to be made available to the 3.4 million Afghans who make their living from opium poppy cultivation, such as saffron or pomegranates, which deliver a much higher income than opium poppies. They consider that, as in Pakistan, Laos and Thailand, a similar process of phasing out opium poppy cultivation could be envisaged for Afghanistan at a cost of EUR 100 million per year by specifically earmarking 10% of the EU’s annual aid to the country for a period of five years. They call for a five-year national plan for the elimination of illicit opium crops , promoted through cooperation between the EU and the Russian Federation, the latter being the major victim of Afghan heroin.

To conclude, Members call on the Council and the Commission to incorporate this proposed strategy fully into their existing strategies and to take the proposal fully into account within their own national plans and to take full account of all the budgetary implications of the proposals contained in this report.

2010/10/07
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2010/07/13
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2010/05/11
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2010/04/26
   CSL - Debate in Council
Details

The Council, in a joint session of foreign and defence ministers, discussed the way forward on the implementation of the EU Action Plan for Enhanced Engagement in Afghanistan and Pakistan and took note of the first six-monthly implementation report.

They were joined by the Secretary-General of NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, for an informal discussion on military and civilian cooperation on and prospects for further EU - NATO cooperation in Afghanistan.

Documents
2010/04/26
   CSL - Council Meeting
2010/03/22
   CSL - Resolution/conclusions adopted by Council
Details

The Council discussed developments in Afghanistan and EU efforts on the ground on the basis of the EU's 2009 Action Plan for Enhanced Engagement in Afghanistan and Pakistan in the presence of the EU's new single representative for Afghanistan, Mr Vygaudas Usackas who takes office from 1 April 2010.

The Council adopted the following conclusions:

the appointment of Mr Usackas as both the Special Representative of the EU and Head of the EU Delegation in Kabul is a further step to strengthen coordinated EU action on the ground, working in close cooperation with other international actors. EU efforts will be spearheaded under Mr Usackas' leadership. He will guide the implementation of the Action Plan , in close cooperation with Member States' representatives in Kabul. The Council expressed sincere appreciation to outgoing EU Special Representative, Ettore Sequi, and outgoing Head of the EU Delegation, Hansjorg Kretschmer, for their outstanding work over the past years; it reiterated that the internal security situation remained a direct challenge to the stability of Afghanistan. The Council underlined its continued support for international civilian efforts in Afghanistan, emphasising the central coordination role of UNAMA and reaffirming its support for the UN mandate and the objectives of ISAF. The key to delivering the civilian efforts will be enhanced coordination and the development of a coherent approach between all major civilian actors, notably the EU Special Representative, the Special Representative of the UN Secretary General and the NATO Senior Civilian Representative, under the leadership of the Government of Afghanistan. The Council underlined the importance of Afghan ownership and leadership ; it emphasised its support for the outcomes of the London Conference of 28 January 2010 and reiterated that all efforts must now focus on implementing the commitments made there, including with regards to the announced Peace and Reintegration Trust Fund to finance the Afghan-led Peace and Reintegration Programme. The Council underlined the significance of balanced, Afghan-led reconciliation and reintegration processes as key elements of a sustainable political solution in Afghanistan. In this respect, it welcomed the organisation of a Peace Jirga, scheduled to take place this Spring. It also welcomed recent contacts between leaders in the region aimed at confidence building. It looks forward to a second successful ad hoc Summit between the EU and Pakistan on 21 April 2010; the Council discussed the Kabul Conference , which should follow up the commitments made in London. The Kabul Conference will provide an opportunity for the Afghan Government to chart the way forward, notably on anti-corruption, reinforced security, effective and impartial governance, economic and social development, human rights and improved electoral processes. The EU expects that the Government of Afghanistan will act swiftly and decisively to deliver on the promises made to its people. Through its Action Plan, the EU in cooperation with UNAMA and other international partners, continues to provide long-term assistance to Afghanistan in institution building and civilian capacity programmes, including at sub-national level. The Council expects to discuss a first report on the progress of implementation of the Action Plan next month; the Council stressed the importance of credible, inclusive and secure parliamentary elections in Afghanistan reflecting the will of the people. Recalling the recommendations of the EU Election Observation Mission to the Presidential Elections of 2009 and the commitments made at the London Conference to ensure the integrity of the elections, the Council urged the Government of Afghanistan to proceed without further delay with reforms to the electoral process to safeguard the impartiality, independence and integrity of the electoral institutions, notably the Independent Election Commission and the Electoral Complaints Commission, in close cooperation with the SRSG of the UN. The Council emphasised that only structural reforms will make any support extended to the electoral process by the international community fully effective. The Council will continue to follow closely preparations for the upcoming parliamentary elections.

2010/03/22
   CSL - Council Meeting
2010/02/04
   EP - GOERENS Charles (ALDE) appointed as rapporteur in DEVE
2010/01/25
   CSL - Debate in Council
Details

The Foreign Affairs Council, chaired by the High Representative, Catherine Ashton, led a discussion on the situation in Afghanistan ahead of the London Conference on Afghanistan on 28 January 2010. At this conference the international community is expected to renew its commitment to Afghanistan following the presidential election earlier in the year.

The High Representative emphasised the EU's solidarity with its international partners in the drive to focus attention on efforts to help the Afghan government take greater responsibility for making the country secure. The Union is enhancing its engagement under an Action Plan adopted last October.

In addition, the EU Police Mission in Afghanistan will continue to contribute to the long-term sustainability of police reform in Afghanistan.

Documents
2010/01/25
   CSL - Council Meeting
2009/12/17
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament

Documents

Activities

Votes

Rapport Arlacchi A7-0333/2010 - § 2/1 #

2010/12/16 Outcome: +: 507, -: 77, 0: 4
DE IT FR ES RO PL EL HU BG SE DK BE AT SK IE FI NL LT PT LU EE SI MT LV CY GB CZ
Total
77
57
61
41
30
43
21
20
16
14
11
14
17
10
11
11
22
7
13
6
6
6
4
5
6
42
16
icon: PPE PPE
222

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Belgium PPE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE

3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Slovenia PPE

3

Malta PPE

For (1)

1
2

Czechia PPE

2
icon: S&D S&D
153

Slovakia S&D

2

Ireland S&D

2

Finland S&D

2

Netherlands S&D

3

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Slovenia S&D

2
icon: ALDE ALDE
69

Sweden ALDE

2
3
3

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1

Lithuania ALDE

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
45

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Greece Verts/ALE

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

Against (1)

3

Denmark Verts/ALE

2

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

2
icon: EFD EFD
17

Greece EFD

2

Denmark EFD

2

Slovakia EFD

For (1)

1

Finland EFD

Against (1)

1

Netherlands EFD

For (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

For (1)

1

United Kingdom EFD

Abstain (1)

1
icon: NI NI
20

France NI

Against (1)

1

Romania NI

1

Hungary NI

2

Bulgaria NI

Against (1)

1

Belgium NI

Abstain (1)

1

United Kingdom NI

For (1)

5
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
24

Germany GUE/NGL

4

Spain GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Ireland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
37

Belgium ECR

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

Against (1)

1

Latvia ECR

Against (1)

1

Rapport Arlacchi A7-0333/2010 - § 2/2 #

2010/12/16 Outcome: +: 488, -: 90, 0: 9
IT DE PL ES FR RO GB BG EL HU CZ SK IE FI SE LT DK SI BE PT LU EE LV MT AT NL CY
Total
56
76
45
40
62
26
41
16
20
18
18
10
11
12
14
9
13
7
14
12
6
6
6
4
17
21
6
icon: PPE PPE
216

Czechia PPE

2

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Slovenia PPE

3

Belgium PPE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE

3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Malta PPE

For (1)

1

Netherlands PPE

2
2
icon: S&D S&D
152

Slovakia S&D

2

Ireland S&D

2

Finland S&D

2

Slovenia S&D

2

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Latvia S&D

1

Netherlands S&D

3
icon: ALDE ALDE
69

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1

Sweden ALDE

2

Lithuania ALDE

1
3

Slovenia ALDE

2
3

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
38

Belgium ECR

For (1)

1

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

For (1)

1
icon: EFD EFD
17

United Kingdom EFD

Against (1)

1

Greece EFD

2

Slovakia EFD

For (1)

1

Finland EFD

For (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

2

Denmark EFD

2

Netherlands EFD

For (1)

1
icon: NI NI
20

France NI

Against (1)

1

Romania NI

1
5

Bulgaria NI

1

Hungary NI

2

Belgium NI

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
25

Germany GUE/NGL

4

Spain GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Ireland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
49

Spain Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

Against (2)

2

Greece Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

Against (2)

2

Sweden Verts/ALE

3

Denmark Verts/ALE

2

Belgium Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

4

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Rapport Arlacchi A7-0333/2010 - § 4 #

2010/12/16 Outcome: +: 515, -: 43, 0: 38
DE IT FR ES RO PL EL HU GB BG SE DK BE AT FI SK IE LT NL CZ SI PT LU EE LV MT CY
Total
77
57
62
40
30
44
21
20
42
16
14
13
14
17
10
10
11
9
22
18
7
13
6
6
6
4
6
icon: PPE PPE
222

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Belgium PPE

For (1)

1

Czechia PPE

2

Slovenia PPE

3

Luxembourg PPE

3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Malta PPE

For (1)

1

Cyprus PPE

Against (1)

2
icon: S&D S&D
156

Finland S&D

2

Slovakia S&D

2

Ireland S&D

2

Netherlands S&D

3

Slovenia S&D

2

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Latvia S&D

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
70

Sweden ALDE

2
3
3
3

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1

Lithuania ALDE

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
47

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Greece Verts/ALE

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

2

Sweden Verts/ALE

Against (1)

3

Denmark Verts/ALE

2

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1
icon: EFD EFD
18

Greece EFD

2

United Kingdom EFD

Against (1)

1

Denmark EFD

2

Finland EFD

For (1)

1

Slovakia EFD

For (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

2

Netherlands EFD

For (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
37

Belgium ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Latvia ECR

Abstain (1)

1
icon: NI NI
20

France NI

Against (1)

1

Romania NI

1

Hungary NI

2

Bulgaria NI

Abstain (1)

1

Belgium NI

Against (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
25

Germany GUE/NGL

4

Spain GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Greece GUE/NGL

2

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Czechia GUE/NGL

3

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Rapport Arlacchi A7-0333/2010 - § 37/1 #

2010/12/16 Outcome: +: 566, 0: 9, -: 7
DE FR IT PL ES GB RO EL HU CZ BG AT SE DK BE NL FI SK PT IE LT SI EE LU LV CY MT
Total
78
57
56
44
39
42
28
21
19
18
16
17
14
13
14
22
11
10
12
10
8
7
6
5
5
5
4
icon: PPE PPE
220

Czechia PPE

2

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Belgium PPE

For (1)

1

Slovenia PPE

3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE

3
2

Malta PPE

For (1)

1
icon: S&D S&D
145

Netherlands S&D

Against (1)

3

Finland S&D

1

Slovakia S&D

2

Ireland S&D

2

Slovenia S&D

2

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
69

Sweden ALDE

2
3
3

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1

Ireland ALDE

Abstain (1)

3

Lithuania ALDE

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
48

Spain Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

2

Greece Verts/ALE

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2
3

Denmark Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Finland Verts/ALE

2

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1
icon: ECR ECR
38

Belgium ECR

For (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

For (1)

1

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
23

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Portugal GUE/NGL

For (1)

3

Ireland GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

1
icon: EFD EFD
18

United Kingdom EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Greece EFD

2

Denmark EFD

2

Netherlands EFD

For (1)

1

Finland EFD

For (1)

1

Slovakia EFD

For (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

2
icon: NI NI
20

France NI

1

Romania NI

1

Hungary NI

2

Bulgaria NI

1

Belgium NI

Abstain (1)

1

Rapport Arlacchi A7-0333/2010 - § 37/2 #

2010/12/16 Outcome: +: 447, -: 115, 0: 9
IT DE ES RO FR HU PL EL BG SK IE PT LT FI DK SE SI LU MT BE EE AT GB NL LV CY CZ
Total
54
74
41
28
58
20
42
21
16
10
10
13
8
10
12
13
6
6
4
13
5
17
39
21
6
6
17
icon: PPE PPE
220

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Slovenia PPE

3

Luxembourg PPE

3

Malta PPE

For (1)

1

Belgium PPE

For (1)

1

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1
2

Czechia PPE

2
icon: S&D S&D
145

Slovakia S&D

2

Ireland S&D

2

Finland S&D

2

Slovenia S&D

2

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Netherlands S&D

3

Latvia S&D

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
62

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1

Ireland ALDE

3

Lithuania ALDE

1
3
3

Sweden ALDE

2

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1
3

Estonia ALDE

2
icon: EFD EFD
18

Greece EFD

2

Slovakia EFD

For (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

2

Finland EFD

For (1)

1

Denmark EFD

2

United Kingdom EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Netherlands EFD

For (1)

1
icon: NI NI
20

Romania NI

1

France NI

Against (1)

1

Hungary NI

2

Bulgaria NI

Against (1)

1

Belgium NI

Abstain (1)

1

United Kingdom NI

Against (1)

5
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
23

Germany GUE/NGL

4

Spain GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Ireland GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

Against (1)

3

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

2

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2
icon: ECR ECR
35

Belgium ECR

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

Against (1)

1

Latvia ECR

Against (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
47

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Greece Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

3

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

4

Estonia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

Against (2)

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Latvia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Rapport Arlacchi A7-0333/2010 - § 40/1 #

2010/12/16 Outcome: +: 590, 0: 3, -: 1
DE FR IT PL ES GB RO NL HU EL CZ AT BG BE SE DK PT FI IE SK LT SI LU EE LV CY MT
Total
79
61
54
45
41
41
28
22
20
21
17
17
16
14
14
13
13
12
11
10
9
7
6
6
6
6
4
icon: PPE PPE
223

Czechia PPE

2

Belgium PPE

For (1)

1

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Slovenia PPE

3

Luxembourg PPE

3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1
2

Malta PPE

For (1)

1
icon: S&D S&D
151

Netherlands S&D

3

Finland S&D

2

Ireland S&D

2

Slovakia S&D

2

Slovenia S&D

2

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Latvia S&D

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
68
3

Sweden ALDE

2
3

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1

Lithuania ALDE

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
49

Spain Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Greece Verts/ALE

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2
3

Denmark Verts/ALE

2

Finland Verts/ALE

2

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1
icon: ECR ECR
39

Netherlands ECR

For (1)

1

Belgium ECR

For (1)

1

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
25

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Ireland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1
icon: NI NI
20

France NI

1

Romania NI

1

Hungary NI

2

Bulgaria NI

1

Belgium NI

For (1)

1
icon: EFD EFD
18

United Kingdom EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Netherlands EFD

For (1)

1

Greece EFD

2

Denmark EFD

2

Finland EFD

For (1)

1

Slovakia EFD

For (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

2

Rapport Arlacchi A7-0333/2010 - § 40/2 #

2010/12/16 Outcome: +: 469, -: 56, 0: 43
IT DE FR ES PL RO HU GB EL BG PT CZ IE SK AT LT FI NL SE SI CY BE LU DK EE MT LV
Total
55
74
58
36
43
27
19
42
21
16
12
18
11
10
17
7
11
20
12
6
6
13
6
12
6
3
6
icon: PPE PPE
214

Czechia PPE

2

Finland PPE

2

Netherlands PPE

2

Slovenia PPE

3
2

Belgium PPE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE

3

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Malta PPE

For (1)

1
icon: S&D S&D
143

Ireland S&D

2

Slovakia S&D

2

Finland S&D

2

Netherlands S&D

3

Slovenia S&D

2

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Latvia S&D

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
67

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1

Lithuania ALDE

1

Sweden ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1
3

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Denmark ALDE

2
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
25

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Ireland GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Denmark GUE/NGL

1
icon: EFD EFD
17

United Kingdom EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Greece EFD

2

Slovakia EFD

For (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

For (1)

1

Finland EFD

For (1)

1

Netherlands EFD

For (1)

1

Denmark EFD

2
icon: NI NI
18

France NI

1

Romania NI

1

Hungary NI

2

United Kingdom NI

For (1)

4

Bulgaria NI

1
icon: ECR ECR
36

Belgium ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Latvia ECR

Abstain (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
47

Spain Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

Against (2)

2

Greece Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Finland Verts/ALE

Against (2)

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Sweden Verts/ALE

3

Belgium Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

4

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

2

Estonia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Rapport Arlacchi A7-0333/2010 - § 40/3 #

2010/12/16 Outcome: +: 446, -: 88, 0: 45
IT DE ES PL RO FR GB EL HU BG SK IE FI LT PT SE SI CZ NL LU EE MT DK BE LV CY AT
Total
50
75
40
44
28
60
43
21
19
16
10
11
12
9
13
12
6
18
21
6
6
4
13
14
6
6
15
icon: PPE PPE
215
2

Slovenia PPE

3

Czechia PPE

2

Luxembourg PPE

3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Malta PPE

For (1)

1

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Belgium PPE

For (1)

1
2
icon: S&D S&D
145

Slovakia S&D

2

Ireland S&D

2

Finland S&D

2

Slovenia S&D

2

Netherlands S&D

3

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Latvia S&D

1

Austria S&D

2
icon: ALDE ALDE
69

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1

Lithuania ALDE

1

Sweden ALDE

2

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1
3
3
icon: EFD EFD
18

United Kingdom EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Greece EFD

2

Slovakia EFD

For (1)

1

Finland EFD

For (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

2

Netherlands EFD

For (1)

1

Denmark EFD

2
icon: ECR ECR
39

Netherlands ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Belgium ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Latvia ECR

Abstain (1)

1
icon: NI NI
20

Romania NI

1

France NI

Against (1)

1

Hungary NI

2

Bulgaria NI

Against (1)

1

Belgium NI

Against (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
25

Germany GUE/NGL

4

Spain GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Ireland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Netherlands GUE/NGL

For (1)

2

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
47

Spain Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

Against (2)

2

Greece Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

Against (2)

2

Sweden Verts/ALE

3

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

2

Belgium Verts/ALE

4

Latvia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Rapport Arlacchi A7-0333/2010 - § 44 #

2010/12/16 Outcome: -: 344, +: 241, 0: 13
DK PT AT SE CY FR CZ MT LT ES BE EL LV FI LU EE SI IE SK NL RO HU BG GB DE IT PL
Total
13
13
17
14
6
62
18
4
9
41
14
21
6
12
6
6
7
10
10
22
29
20
16
43
79
54
45
icon: S&D S&D
153

Latvia S&D

1

Finland S&D

2

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Slovenia S&D

2

Ireland S&D

2

Slovakia S&D

2

Netherlands S&D

3
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
49

Denmark Verts/ALE

2

Austria Verts/ALE

2
3

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Belgium Verts/ALE

Against (1)

4

Greece Verts/ALE

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Finland Verts/ALE

2

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

2
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
25

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Ireland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1
icon: NI NI
20

France NI

1

Belgium NI

Abstain (1)

1

Romania NI

1

Hungary NI

2

Bulgaria NI

Against (1)

1
icon: EFD EFD
18

Denmark EFD

2

Lithuania EFD

2

Greece EFD

2

Finland EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Slovakia EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Netherlands EFD

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom EFD

Abstain (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
39

Belgium ECR

Against (1)

1

Latvia ECR

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

Against (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
70

Denmark ALDE

3

Sweden ALDE

2

Lithuania ALDE

Against (1)

1

Belgium ALDE

3

Luxembourg ALDE

Against (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

Against (2)

2

Ireland ALDE

3

Slovakia ALDE

Against (1)

1
3
icon: PPE PPE
223

Denmark PPE

Against (1)

1

Cyprus PPE

2

Czechia PPE

2

Malta PPE

Against (1)

1

Belgium PPE

Against (1)

1

Latvia PPE

For (1)

3

Finland PPE

3

Luxembourg PPE

3

Estonia PPE

Against (1)

1

Slovenia PPE

3

Rapport Arlacchi A7-0333/2010 - § 52/1 #

2010/12/16 Outcome: +: 528, -: 55, 0: 9
DE FR IT ES RO EL HU PL BG SE AT PT IE NL FI BE SK LT LU EE CZ SI GB MT LV CY DK
Total
79
61
53
40
28
21
20
45
16
14
17
13
11
21
12
14
10
9
6
6
18
7
42
4
6
5
13
icon: PPE PPE
222

Belgium PPE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE

3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Czechia PPE

2

Slovenia PPE

Against (1)

3

Malta PPE

For (1)

1
2

Denmark PPE

Against (1)

1
icon: S&D S&D
152

Ireland S&D

2

Netherlands S&D

3

Finland S&D

2

Slovakia S&D

2

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Slovenia S&D

2

Latvia S&D

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
69

Sweden ALDE

2
3

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1

Lithuania ALDE

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Denmark ALDE

3
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
48

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Greece Verts/ALE

1
3

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Finland Verts/ALE

2

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

2

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

2
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
24

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Ireland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1
icon: EFD EFD
17

Greece EFD

2

Netherlands EFD

For (1)

1

Finland EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Slovakia EFD

For (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

2

United Kingdom EFD

Against (1)

1

Denmark EFD

2
icon: NI NI
20

France NI

1

Romania NI

1

Hungary NI

2

Bulgaria NI

Against (1)

1

Belgium NI

Abstain (1)

1

United Kingdom NI

Against (1)

5
icon: ECR ECR
39

Netherlands ECR

Against (1)

1

Belgium ECR

Against (1)

1

Latvia ECR

Against (1)

1

Rapport Arlacchi A7-0333/2010 - § 52/2 #

2010/12/16 Outcome: +: 449, -: 127, 0: 8
IT DE ES RO FR HU PL EL BG IE SK FI SE PT LT SI LU BE EE MT AT LV CY NL CZ GB DK
Total
52
78
41
29
59
20
45
21
16
11
10
12
14
13
8
6
5
14
6
4
15
6
6
21
17
41
13
icon: PPE PPE
218

Slovenia PPE

3

Luxembourg PPE

3

Belgium PPE

For (1)

1

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Malta PPE

For (1)

1
2

Czechia PPE

2

Denmark PPE

Against (1)

1
icon: S&D S&D
151

Ireland S&D

2

Slovakia S&D

2

Finland S&D

2

Slovenia S&D

2

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Latvia S&D

1

Netherlands S&D

3
icon: ALDE ALDE
68

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1

Sweden ALDE

2

Lithuania ALDE

1

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1
3

Denmark ALDE

3
icon: EFD EFD
18

Greece EFD

2

Slovakia EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Finland EFD

For (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

2

Netherlands EFD

For (1)

1

United Kingdom EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Denmark EFD

2
icon: NI NI
18

Romania NI

1

France NI

Against (1)

1

Hungary NI

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Bulgaria NI

Against (1)

1

Belgium NI

Abstain (1)

1

United Kingdom NI

Abstain (1)

4
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
25

Germany GUE/NGL

4

Spain GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Ireland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1
icon: ECR ECR
39

Belgium ECR

Against (1)

1

Latvia ECR

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

Against (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
46

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Greece Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

Against (2)

2

Sweden Verts/ALE

3

Belgium Verts/ALE

For (1)

4

Estonia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Latvia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

2

Rapport Arlacchi A7-0333/2010 - § 56/1 #

2010/12/16 Outcome: +: 535, 0: 40, -: 15
DE FR IT ES RO PL GB EL HU AT BG CZ SE PT FI BE NL SK IE LT SI LU EE LV MT DK CY
Total
79
61
53
41
29
43
42
21
20
17
16
18
14
12
11
14
22
10
11
8
7
6
6
6
4
13
5
icon: PPE PPE
219

Czechia PPE

2

Belgium PPE

For (1)

1

Slovenia PPE

3

Luxembourg PPE

3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Malta PPE

For (1)

1

Denmark PPE

Against (1)

1
2
icon: S&D S&D
151

Finland S&D

2

Netherlands S&D

3

Slovakia S&D

2

Ireland S&D

2

Slovenia S&D

2

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Latvia S&D

1

Cyprus S&D

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
70

Sweden ALDE

2
3
3

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1

Lithuania ALDE

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Denmark ALDE

Against (2)

3
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
49

Spain Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

2

Greece Verts/ALE

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2
3

Finland Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

2
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
24

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Ireland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

2
icon: EFD EFD
18

United Kingdom EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Greece EFD

2

Finland EFD

For (1)

1

Netherlands EFD

Against (1)

1

Slovakia EFD

For (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

2

Denmark EFD

2
icon: NI NI
20

France NI

1

Romania NI

1

Hungary NI

For (1)

Abstain (1)

2

Bulgaria NI

1

Belgium NI

Against (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
38

Belgium ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

Against (1)

1

Latvia ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Rapport Arlacchi A7-0333/2010 - § 56/2 #

2010/12/16 Outcome: +: 451, -: 84, 0: 48
IT DE ES PL FR RO HU EL GB BG SK IE LT SE SI FI BE PT CZ LU NL DK EE MT LV AT CY
Total
53
78
40
43
60
28
20
21
42
16
10
11
8
14
7
11
14
12
17
6
22
13
5
3
6
16
6
icon: PPE PPE
221

Slovenia PPE

3

Belgium PPE

For (1)

1

Czechia PPE

2

Luxembourg PPE

3

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Malta PPE

For (1)

1
2
icon: S&D S&D
146

Slovakia S&D

2

Ireland S&D

2

Slovenia S&D

2

Finland S&D

For (1)

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Netherlands S&D

3

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Latvia S&D

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
69

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1

Lithuania ALDE

1

Sweden ALDE

2

Slovenia ALDE

2
3

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1
3

Estonia ALDE

2
icon: EFD EFD
17

Greece EFD

2

United Kingdom EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Slovakia EFD

For (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

2

Finland EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Netherlands EFD

For (1)

1

Denmark EFD

2
icon: ECR ECR
37

Belgium ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Latvia ECR

Abstain (1)

1
icon: NI NI
20

France NI

Against (1)

1

Romania NI

1

Hungary NI

2

Bulgaria NI

Against (1)

1

Belgium NI

Abstain (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
24

Germany GUE/NGL

4

Spain GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Greece GUE/NGL

2

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
48

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Greece Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

Against (2)

2

Sweden Verts/ALE

3

Finland Verts/ALE

Against (2)

2

Belgium Verts/ALE

For (1)

4

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Denmark Verts/ALE

2

Estonia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Rapport Arlacchi A7-0333/2010 - § 66 #

2010/12/16 Outcome: +: 511, -: 54, 0: 24
DE IT FR ES PL RO HU EL GB BG CZ AT IE PT SK LT DK SE NL LU FI SI CY BE LV EE MT
Total
79
53
59
41
45
29
20
20
42
16
17
17
11
12
10
9
13
14
22
6
11
6
6
14
6
6
4
icon: PPE PPE
222

Czechia PPE

2

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE

3

Slovenia PPE

2
2

Belgium PPE

For (1)

1

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Malta PPE

For (1)

1
icon: S&D S&D
150

Ireland S&D

2

Slovakia S&D

2

Netherlands S&D

3

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Finland S&D

2

Slovenia S&D

2

Latvia S&D

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
71

Spain ALDE

2

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1

Lithuania ALDE

1

Denmark ALDE

Against (1)

3

Sweden ALDE

2

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Belgium ALDE

Against (1)

3
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
22

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Greece GUE/NGL

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1

Czechia GUE/NGL

2

Ireland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2
icon: ECR ECR
39

Netherlands ECR

Against (1)

1

Belgium ECR

For (1)

1

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1
icon: EFD EFD
18

Greece EFD

2

United Kingdom EFD

1

Slovakia EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

For (1)

Abstain (1)

2

Denmark EFD

2

Netherlands EFD

Against (1)

1

Finland EFD

Abstain (1)

1
icon: NI NI
19

France NI

1

Romania NI

Against (1)

1

Hungary NI

For (1)

Abstain (1)

2

United Kingdom NI

4

Bulgaria NI

Against (1)

1

Belgium NI

Against (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
47

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Greece Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

2

Austria Verts/ALE

Against (1)

2

Denmark Verts/ALE

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

2

Sweden Verts/ALE

3

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

For (1)

Abstain (1)

4

Latvia Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Rapport Arlacchi A7-0333/2010 - § 67 #

2010/12/16 Outcome: +: 538, -: 42, 0: 5
DE FR IT ES RO EL HU PL AT BG SE DK NL PT IE FI SK BE LT GB SI EE CY CZ LU MT LV
Total
79
60
53
40
29
21
20
42
16
16
14
13
22
12
11
11
10
13
9
42
6
6
6
18
5
4
6
icon: PPE PPE
221

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Belgium PPE

For (1)

1

Slovenia PPE

2

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1
2

Czechia PPE

2

Luxembourg PPE

3

Malta PPE

For (1)

1
icon: S&D S&D
149

Netherlands S&D

3

Ireland S&D

2

Finland S&D

2

Slovakia S&D

2

Slovenia S&D

2

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Latvia S&D

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
71

Sweden ALDE

2
3

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1
3

Lithuania ALDE

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
46

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Greece Verts/ALE

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2
3

Denmark Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

2

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
24

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Portugal GUE/NGL

2

Ireland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1
icon: EFD EFD
18

Greece EFD

2

Denmark EFD

2

Netherlands EFD

For (1)

1

Finland EFD

For (1)

1

Slovakia EFD

For (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

2

United Kingdom EFD

Abstain (1)

1
icon: NI NI
19

France NI

1

Romania NI

1

Hungary NI

2

Bulgaria NI

Against (1)

1

Belgium NI

Abstain (1)

1

United Kingdom NI

Against (1)

5
icon: ECR ECR
36

Netherlands ECR

Against (1)

1

Belgium ECR

Against (1)

1

Latvia ECR

Against (1)

1

Rapport Arlacchi A7-0333/2010 - § 71/1 #

2010/12/16 Outcome: +: 549, 0: 16, -: 16
DE FR IT PL ES GB RO HU EL BG CZ SE AT NL FI BE PT IE SK DK LT SI LU EE LV CY MT
Total
78
61
52
43
39
40
28
20
21
16
18
14
16
20
12
13
13
10
10
12
9
7
6
6
6
6
4
icon: PPE PPE
214

Czechia PPE

2

Netherlands PPE

2

Belgium PPE

For (1)

1

Slovenia PPE

3

Luxembourg PPE

3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1
2

Malta PPE

For (1)

1
icon: S&D S&D
152

Netherlands S&D

3

Finland S&D

2

Ireland S&D

2

Slovakia S&D

2

Slovenia S&D

2

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Latvia S&D

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
70

Sweden ALDE

2
3

Ireland ALDE

3

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1
3

Lithuania ALDE

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
49

Spain Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

2

Greece Verts/ALE

1
3

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Finland Verts/ALE

2

Denmark Verts/ALE

2

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1
icon: ECR ECR
35

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
24

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Greece GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

2

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Portugal GUE/NGL

For (1)

3

Ireland GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

Against (1)

2
icon: EFD EFD
18

United Kingdom EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Greece EFD

2

Netherlands EFD

For (1)

1

Finland EFD

For (1)

1

Slovakia EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Denmark EFD

2

Lithuania EFD

2
icon: NI NI
18

France NI

1

United Kingdom NI

3

Romania NI

Against (1)

1

Hungary NI

2

Bulgaria NI

1

Belgium NI

Abstain (1)

1

Rapport Arlacchi A7-0333/2010 - § 71/2 #

2010/12/16 Outcome: +: 483, -: 82, 0: 14
IT DE PL ES GB FR RO BG HU EL IE CZ FI PT SK SI SE LT AT NL LU BE EE LV MT DK CY
Total
52
77
44
40
42
58
29
16
20
20
11
17
11
13
8
7
13
7
17
22
6
13
6
6
4
13
6
icon: PPE PPE
217

Czechia PPE

2

Slovenia PPE

3

Luxembourg PPE

3

Belgium PPE

For (1)

1

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Malta PPE

For (1)

1

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1
2
icon: S&D S&D
150

Ireland S&D

2

Finland S&D

2

Slovakia S&D

2

Slovenia S&D

2

Netherlands S&D

3

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Latvia S&D

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
68

Spain ALDE

1

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Sweden ALDE

For (1)

1

Lithuania ALDE

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Belgium ALDE

2
3
icon: ECR ECR
37

Netherlands ECR

For (1)

1

Belgium ECR

For (1)

1

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1
icon: EFD EFD
15

United Kingdom EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Greece EFD

For (1)

1

Finland EFD

For (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Netherlands EFD

For (1)

1

Denmark EFD

2
icon: NI NI
20

France NI

Against (1)

1

Romania NI

Against (1)

1

Bulgaria NI

1

Hungary NI

2

Belgium NI

Against (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
23

Germany GUE/NGL

4

Spain GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

France GUE/NGL

3

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Ireland GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

Against (1)

3

Netherlands GUE/NGL

For (1)

2

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
48

Spain Verts/ALE

Against (1)

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

Against (2)

2

Greece Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

3

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

4

Estonia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

2

Rapport Arlacchi A7-0333/2010 - § 71/3 #

2010/12/16 Outcome: +: 390, -: 164, 0: 18
DE FR ES IT SE AT RO LT FI PT NL BE EE CZ HU BG SI GB EL CY PL MT IE LU SK DK LV
Total
73
58
36
50
14
17
29
9
12
12
22
13
6
18
19
15
7
43
21
6
42
4
11
6
10
13
5
icon: S&D S&D
147

Finland S&D

2

Netherlands S&D

3

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Slovenia S&D

2

Ireland S&D

2

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Slovakia S&D

2

Latvia S&D

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
67

Sweden ALDE

2

Lithuania ALDE

1

Belgium ALDE

2

Slovenia ALDE

2

Ireland ALDE

Abstain (1)

4

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1

Denmark ALDE

3
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
48

Spain Verts/ALE

2
3

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Finland Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

2

Greece Verts/ALE

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

2

Latvia Verts/ALE

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
22

Germany GUE/NGL

4

France GUE/NGL

2

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

3

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Ireland GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1
icon: PPE PPE
212

Finland PPE

Against (1)

3

Netherlands PPE

Against (1)

3

Belgium PPE

Against (1)

1

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Czechia PPE

Against (1)

2

Slovenia PPE

Against (1)

3

Cyprus PPE

Against (1)

2

Malta PPE

For (1)

1

Ireland PPE

Abstain (1)

4

Luxembourg PPE

For (1)

3

Denmark PPE

Against (1)

1

Latvia PPE

Against (1)

2
icon: NI NI
20

France NI

1

Romania NI

Against (1)

1

Belgium NI

Against (1)

1

Hungary NI

For (1)

Abstain (1)

2

Bulgaria NI

Against (1)

1
icon: EFD EFD
18

Lithuania EFD

2

Finland EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Netherlands EFD

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Greece EFD

2

Slovakia EFD

Against (1)

1

Denmark EFD

2
icon: ECR ECR
37

Netherlands ECR

Against (1)

1

Belgium ECR

Against (1)

1

Latvia ECR

Against (1)

1

Rapport Arlacchi A7-0333/2010 - § 71/4 #

2010/12/16 Outcome: +: 510, 0: 19, -: 15
DE FR IT ES GB PL RO HU EL BG AT SE NL FI DK BE CZ PT SK IE SI LT LV CY LU EE MT
Total
69
56
47
37
37
38
27
20
21
15
15
14
21
12
13
14
16
11
10
11
7
6
6
6
5
5
4
icon: PPE PPE
196

Netherlands PPE

2

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Belgium PPE

For (1)

1

Czechia PPE

1

Slovenia PPE

3
2

Luxembourg PPE

3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Malta PPE

For (1)

1
icon: S&D S&D
145

Netherlands S&D

3

Finland S&D

2

Slovakia S&D

2

Ireland S&D

2

Slovenia S&D

2

Latvia S&D

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
67

Italy ALDE

2

Spain ALDE

1

Sweden ALDE

2
3

Belgium ALDE

Against (1)

3

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1

Ireland ALDE

Abstain (1)

4

Slovenia ALDE

2

Lithuania ALDE

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
47

Spain Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

2

Greece Verts/ALE

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Sweden Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

3

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Finland Verts/ALE

2

Denmark Verts/ALE

2

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
34

Netherlands ECR

For (1)

1

Belgium ECR

For (1)

1

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1
icon: EFD EFD
16

United Kingdom EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Greece EFD

2

Netherlands EFD

For (1)

1

Finland EFD

For (1)

1

Denmark EFD

2

Slovakia EFD

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
22

Germany GUE/NGL

For (1)

4

Spain GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1

Greece GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

2

Netherlands GUE/NGL

For (1)

2

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Czechia GUE/NGL

3

Portugal GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1
icon: NI NI
16

United Kingdom NI

For (1)

Abstain (1)

2

Romania NI

Against (1)

1

Hungary NI

2

Bulgaria NI

1

Belgium NI

For (1)

1

Rapport Arlacchi A7-0333/2010 - § 72 #

2010/12/16 Outcome: +: 556, -: 31, 0: 6
DE IT FR PL ES GB RO NL EL HU BG BE FI SE CZ DK AT SK IE LT SI LU EE LV PT MT CY
Total
79
52
61
45
41
41
29
22
21
20
16
14
12
14
18
13
17
10
11
9
7
6
6
6
12
4
6
icon: PPE PPE
222

Belgium PPE

For (1)

1

Czechia PPE

2

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Slovenia PPE

3

Luxembourg PPE

3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Malta PPE

For (1)

1
2
icon: S&D S&D
151

Netherlands S&D

3

Finland S&D

2

Slovakia S&D

2

Ireland S&D

2

Slovenia S&D

2

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Latvia S&D

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
71
3

Sweden ALDE

2
3

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1

Lithuania ALDE

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
49

Spain Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Greece Verts/ALE

1

Finland Verts/ALE

2

Sweden Verts/ALE

Against (1)

3

Denmark Verts/ALE

2

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1
icon: ECR ECR
37

Netherlands ECR

For (1)

1

Belgium ECR

For (1)

1

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1
icon: EFD EFD
18

United Kingdom EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Netherlands EFD

For (1)

1

Greece EFD

2

Finland EFD

For (1)

1

Denmark EFD

2

Slovakia EFD

For (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

2
icon: NI NI
20

France NI

1

Romania NI

1

Hungary NI

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

2

Bulgaria NI

Against (1)

1

Belgium NI

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
24

Germany GUE/NGL

4

Spain GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Rapport Arlacchi A7-0333/2010 - § 73 #

2010/12/16 Outcome: +: 490, -: 77, 0: 7
IT PL DE GB ES FR RO EL HU NL BG CZ SK IE FI DK SI SE LU BE PT LT AT EE LV MT CY
Total
53
43
75
43
39
59
28
20
18
22
14
17
10
11
12
13
7
13
6
14
12
5
17
6
6
4
6
icon: PPE PPE
209

Czechia PPE

2

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Slovenia PPE

3

Luxembourg PPE

3

Belgium PPE

For (1)

1

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Malta PPE

For (1)

1
2
icon: S&D S&D
149

Netherlands S&D

3

Slovakia S&D

2

Ireland S&D

2

Finland S&D

2

Slovenia S&D

2

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Latvia S&D

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
70

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1
3

Slovenia ALDE

2

Sweden ALDE

2

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1
3

Lithuania ALDE

1
icon: ECR ECR
38

Netherlands ECR

For (1)

1

Belgium ECR

For (1)

1

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1
icon: EFD EFD
16

United Kingdom EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Greece EFD

2

Netherlands EFD

For (1)

1

Slovakia EFD

For (1)

1

Finland EFD

For (1)

1

Denmark EFD

2
icon: NI NI
19

Romania NI

1

Hungary NI

2

Bulgaria NI

Against (1)

1

Belgium NI

Abstain (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
23

Germany GUE/NGL

4

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Spain GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

France GUE/NGL

3

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Ireland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
49

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

Against (2)

2

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Greece Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Finland Verts/ALE

Against (2)

2

Denmark Verts/ALE

2

Sweden Verts/ALE

3

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

Abstain (1)

4

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Estonia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Rapport Arlacchi A7-0333/2010 - § 81 #

2010/12/16 Outcome: +: 324, -: 248, 0: 6
GB BE SE CZ FR ES DK NL FI RO BG EE LV MT LT SI AT DE IE LU EL IT SK PT CY PL HU
Total
42
14
14
18
59
39
13
22
12
29
15
5
6
4
9
7
17
77
10
6
20
52
10
12
6
40
19
icon: S&D S&D
144

Netherlands S&D

3

Finland S&D

2

Latvia S&D

1

Slovenia S&D

2

Ireland S&D

For (1)

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Slovakia S&D

2
icon: ALDE ALDE
68
3

Sweden ALDE

2
3

Lithuania ALDE

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
49

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

2
3

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Denmark Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Finland Verts/ALE

2

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Greece Verts/ALE

1
icon: ECR ECR
36

Belgium ECR

For (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

For (1)

1

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1
icon: EFD EFD
17

United Kingdom EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Denmark EFD

2

Netherlands EFD

For (1)

1

Finland EFD

For (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

2

Greece EFD

Against (1)

2

Slovakia EFD

For (1)

1
icon: NI NI
19

Belgium NI

Abstain (1)

1

Romania NI

1

Bulgaria NI

Against (1)

1

Hungary NI

2
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
24

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Spain GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Germany GUE/NGL

4

Ireland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2
icon: PPE PPE
220

Belgium PPE

Against (1)

1

Czechia PPE

2

Denmark PPE

Against (1)

1

Estonia PPE

Against (1)

1

Latvia PPE

For (1)

3

Malta PPE

Against (1)

1

Slovenia PPE

3

Luxembourg PPE

3

Cyprus PPE

2

Rapport Arlacchi A7-0333/2010 - § 88 #

2010/12/16 Outcome: +: 505, 0: 45, -: 32
DE FR IT ES PL RO GB EL HU NL SE BG FI AT DK SK BE IE LT SI PT LU EE CZ MT LV CY
Total
76
60
51
40
44
29
43
21
20
22
14
14
12
17
13
10
13
10
8
7
13
6
6
17
4
5
6
icon: PPE PPE
216

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Belgium PPE

For (1)

1

Ireland PPE

3

Slovenia PPE

3

Luxembourg PPE

3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Czechia PPE

2

Malta PPE

For (1)

1

Latvia PPE

2
2
icon: S&D S&D
146

Netherlands S&D

3

Bulgaria S&D

2

Finland S&D

2

Slovakia S&D

2

Ireland S&D

2

Slovenia S&D

2

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Latvia S&D

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
70

Italy ALDE

2

Sweden ALDE

2
3

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1
3

Lithuania ALDE

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
49

Spain Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

2

Greece Verts/ALE

1

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3
3

Finland Verts/ALE

2

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Denmark Verts/ALE

2

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1
icon: EFD EFD
18

United Kingdom EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Greece EFD

2

Netherlands EFD

For (1)

1

Finland EFD

For (1)

1

Denmark EFD

2

Slovakia EFD

For (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

For (1)

Abstain (1)

2
icon: ECR ECR
39

Netherlands ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Belgium ECR

Against (1)

1

Latvia ECR

Abstain (1)

1
icon: NI NI
20

France NI

Against (1)

1

Romania NI

1
5

Hungary NI

2

Bulgaria NI

Abstain (1)

1

Belgium NI

Abstain (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
23

Germany GUE/NGL

4

France GUE/NGL

3

Spain GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Rapport Arlacchi A7-0333/2010 - § 89/1 #

2010/12/16 Outcome: +: 541, -: 36, 0: 7
DE IT FR PL ES GB RO EL HU BG SE FI BE AT CZ NL DK IE SK LT SI PT LU EE LV MT CY
Total
78
53
59
40
40
43
29
21
20
16
14
12
13
17
17
22
12
11
9
9
7
13
6
6
6
4
6
icon: PPE PPE
219

Belgium PPE

For (1)

1

Czechia PPE

2

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Slovenia PPE

3

Luxembourg PPE

3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Malta PPE

For (1)

1
2
icon: S&D S&D
147

Finland S&D

2

Netherlands S&D

3

Ireland S&D

2

Slovakia S&D

1

Slovenia S&D

2

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Latvia S&D

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
70

Sweden ALDE

2
3
3

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1

Lithuania ALDE

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
49

Spain Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

2

Greece Verts/ALE

1
3

Finland Verts/ALE

2

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Denmark Verts/ALE

2

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1
icon: ECR ECR
38

Belgium ECR

For (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

For (1)

1

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1
icon: EFD EFD
17

United Kingdom EFD

Against (1)

1

Greece EFD

2

Finland EFD

For (1)

1

Netherlands EFD

For (1)

1

Denmark EFD

1

Slovakia EFD

For (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

For (1)

Abstain (1)

2
icon: NI NI
20

France NI

Against (1)

1
5

Romania NI

1

Hungary NI

2

Bulgaria NI

Abstain (1)

1

Belgium NI

Abstain (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
23

Germany GUE/NGL

4

France GUE/NGL

3

Spain GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Rapport Arlacchi A7-0333/2010 - § 89/2 #

2010/12/16 Outcome: +: 498, -: 76, 0: 5
DE IT FR ES RO EL HU BG SE PL BE AT SK FI DK IE LT NL SI PT EE LU MT LV CY CZ GB
Total
77
53
59
41
29
19
20
16
14
41
14
16
10
10
11
10
9
22
7
13
6
5
4
6
6
18
42
icon: PPE PPE
218

Belgium PPE

For (1)

1

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Ireland PPE

3

Slovenia PPE

3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE

3

Malta PPE

For (1)

1
2

Czechia PPE

2
icon: S&D S&D
148

Slovakia S&D

2

Finland S&D

2

Ireland S&D

2

Netherlands S&D

3

Slovenia S&D

2

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Latvia S&D

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
67

Sweden ALDE

2
3

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1

Finland ALDE

2

Denmark ALDE

For (1)

1

Lithuania ALDE

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
48

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Greece Verts/ALE

1
3

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Finland Verts/ALE

2

Denmark Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

2
icon: EFD EFD
17

Greece EFD

For (1)

1

Slovakia EFD

For (1)

1

Finland EFD

For (1)

1

Denmark EFD

2

Lithuania EFD

For (1)

Abstain (1)

2

Netherlands EFD

For (1)

1

United Kingdom EFD

Against (1)

1
icon: NI NI
19

France NI

Against (1)

1

Romania NI

1

Hungary NI

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

2

Bulgaria NI

Against (1)

1

Belgium NI

Abstain (1)

1

United Kingdom NI

Abstain (1)

4
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
22

Germany GUE/NGL

4

France GUE/NGL

Against (2)

2

Spain GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Portugal GUE/NGL

3

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
39

Belgium ECR

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

Against (1)

1

Latvia ECR

Against (1)

1

Rapport Arlacchi A7-0333/2010 - § 93 #

2010/12/16 Outcome: +: 297, -: 275, 0: 5
FR BE DE GB SE ES NL FI EE PT AT IE RO LT DK BG MT SI CZ LU EL CY LV SK HU IT PL
Total
60
14
72
43
14
38
22
11
6
12
16
11
29
9
13
16
4
7
17
6
21
6
5
10
20
53
41
icon: S&D S&D
145

Netherlands S&D

3

Finland S&D

2

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Ireland S&D

2

Slovenia S&D

2

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Latvia S&D

1

Slovakia S&D

2
icon: ALDE ALDE
69
3

Sweden ALDE

2

Spain ALDE

1

Lithuania ALDE

1

Denmark ALDE

For (1)

3

Slovenia ALDE

2

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
49

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

2
3

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Finland Verts/ALE

2

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Denmark Verts/ALE

2

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Greece Verts/ALE

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
22

Germany GUE/NGL

3

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Portugal GUE/NGL

Against (1)

3

Ireland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Czechia GUE/NGL

2

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2
icon: NI NI
19

France NI

1

Belgium NI

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom NI

Against (1)

5

Romania NI

1

Bulgaria NI

Against (1)

1

Hungary NI

2
icon: EFD EFD
18

United Kingdom EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Netherlands EFD

Against (1)

1

Finland EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

2

Denmark EFD

2

Greece EFD

2

Slovakia EFD

For (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
39

Belgium ECR

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

Against (1)

1

Latvia ECR

Against (1)

1
icon: PPE PPE
215

Belgium PPE

Against (1)

1

Estonia PPE

Against (1)

1

Denmark PPE

Against (1)

1

Malta PPE

Against (1)

1

Slovenia PPE

3

Czechia PPE

2

Luxembourg PPE

3

Cyprus PPE

2

Latvia PPE

2

Rapport Arlacchi A7-0333/2010 - Considérant G/1 #

2010/12/16 Outcome: +: 565, 0: 9, -: 6
DE FR IT ES GB PL RO NL HU EL CZ AT BG SE DK FI BE PT IE SK LT SI EE LV CY LU MT
Total
79
59
52
41
43
33
29
22
20
21
18
17
16
14
13
12
14
13
10
10
9
7
6
6
6
5
4
icon: PPE PPE
218

Netherlands PPE

3

Czechia PPE

2

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Belgium PPE

For (1)

1

Slovenia PPE

3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1
2

Luxembourg PPE

3

Malta PPE

For (1)

1
icon: S&D S&D
148

Netherlands S&D

3

Finland S&D

2

Ireland S&D

2

Slovakia S&D

2

Slovenia S&D

2

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Latvia S&D

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
69

Italy ALDE

2

Sweden ALDE

2
3
3

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1

Lithuania ALDE

1

Slovenia ALDE

2
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
48

Spain Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Greece Verts/ALE

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2
3

Denmark Verts/ALE

2

Finland Verts/ALE

2

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
35

Netherlands ECR

For (1)

1

Belgium ECR

For (1)

1

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1
icon: EFD EFD
18

United Kingdom EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Netherlands EFD

For (1)

1

Greece EFD

2

Denmark EFD

2

Finland EFD

For (1)

1

Slovakia EFD

For (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

2
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
23

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

For (1)

3
icon: NI NI
20

France NI

1

Romania NI

1

Hungary NI

2

Bulgaria NI

1

Belgium NI

Against (1)

1

Rapport Arlacchi A7-0333/2010 - Considérant G/2 #

2010/12/16 Outcome: +: 312, -: 251, 0: 11
IT DE HU RO BG SK PL IE SI FR LU FI EE AT EL PT LV LT NL SE MT CY DK ES BE CZ GB
Total
53
76
20
27
16
10
40
11
7
60
5
11
6
17
21
13
6
9
21
12
4
6
13
39
12
17
41
icon: PPE PPE
218

Slovenia PPE

3

Luxembourg PPE

3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Malta PPE

For (1)

1
2

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Belgium PPE

For (1)

1

Czechia PPE

2
icon: ALDE ALDE
65

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Lithuania ALDE

1

Sweden ALDE

2
3

Spain ALDE

1
3
icon: EFD EFD
18

Slovakia EFD

For (1)

1

Finland EFD

For (1)

1

Greece EFD

2

Lithuania EFD

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

2

Netherlands EFD

For (1)

1

Denmark EFD

2

United Kingdom EFD

Abstain (1)

1
icon: NI NI
20

Hungary NI

For (1)

Abstain (1)

2

Romania NI

1

Bulgaria NI

Against (1)

1

France NI

1

Belgium NI

Against (1)

1
5
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
24

Germany GUE/NGL

4

Ireland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

France GUE/NGL

4

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Portugal GUE/NGL

Against (1)

3

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Spain GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
37

Latvia ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Belgium ECR

Against (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
48

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

Against (2)

2

Estonia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Greece Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Sweden Verts/ALE

3

Denmark Verts/ALE

2

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Belgium Verts/ALE

4

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

Against (2)

2
icon: S&D S&D
143

Slovakia S&D

2

Ireland S&D

2

Slovenia S&D

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Finland S&D

2

Estonia S&D

Against (1)

1

Latvia S&D

Against (1)

1

Netherlands S&D

For (1)

3
2

Belgium S&D

2
AmendmentsDossier
402 2009/2217(INI)
2010/04/21 DEVE 13 amendments...
source: PE-441.045
2010/10/07 AFET 389 amendments...
source: PE-445.614

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)

committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Foreign Affairs
committee
AFET
rapporteur
name: ARLACCHI Pino date: 2010-11-18T00:00:00 group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
shadows
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Foreign Affairs
committee
AFET
shadows
docs/0/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE439.973&secondRef=02
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/DEVE-AD-439973_EN.html
docs/1/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE440.141
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/EN&reference=PE440.141
docs/2/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE445.614
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/EN&reference=PE445.614
docs/3/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2010-0333_EN.html
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2010-0333_EN.html
events/0/type
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
New
Committee referral announced in Parliament
events/4/type
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
New
Vote in committee
events/5
date
2010-11-22T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2010-0333_EN.html title: A7-0333/2010
events/5
date
2010-11-22T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2010-0333_EN.html title: A7-0333/2010
events/7/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20101215&type=CRE
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/EN&reference=20101215&type=CRE
events/9
date
2010-12-16T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-7-2010-0490_EN.html title: T7-0490/2010
summary
events/9
date
2010-12-16T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-7-2010-0490_EN.html title: T7-0490/2010
summary
procedure/Modified legal basis
Rules of Procedure EP 150
procedure/Other legal basis
Rules of Procedure EP 159
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure EP 54
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure EP 52
committees/0/date
    committees/1
    type
    Committee Opinion
    body
    EP
    associated
    False
    committee_full
    Development
    committee
    DEVE
    rapporteur
    name: GOERENS Charles date: 2010-02-04T00:00:00 group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
    committees/1
    type
    Committee Opinion
    body
    EP
    associated
    False
    committee_full
    Development
    committee
    DEVE
    date
    2010-02-04T00:00:00
    rapporteur
    name: GOERENS Charles group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
    docs/3/docs/0/url
    Old
    http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2010-333&language=EN
    New
    http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2010-0333_EN.html
    docs/4/body
    EC
    events/5/docs/0/url
    Old
    http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2010-333&language=EN
    New
    http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2010-0333_EN.html
    events/9/docs/0/url
    Old
    http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2010-490
    New
    http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-7-2010-0490_EN.html
    activities
    • date: 2009-12-17T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: KASOULIDES Ioannis group: S&D name: NEUSER Norbert group: Verts/ALE name: KIIL-NIELSEN Nicole group: ECR name: VAN ORDEN Geoffrey group: GUE/NGL name: MEYER Willy responsible: True committee_full: Foreign Affairs committee: AFET body: EP responsible: False committee: DEVE date: 2010-02-04T00:00:00 committee_full: Development rapporteur: group: ALDE name: GOERENS Charles
    • body: CSL meeting_id: 2992 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2992*&MEET_DATE=25/01/2010 type: Debate in Council title: 2992 council: General Affairs date: 2010-01-25T00:00:00 type: Council Meeting
    • body: CSL meeting_id: 3005 council: General Affairs date: 2010-03-22T00:00:00 type: Council Meeting
    • body: CSL meeting_id: 3009 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=3009*&MEET_DATE=26/04/2010 type: Debate in Council title: 3009 council: General Affairs date: 2010-04-26T00:00:00 type: Council Meeting
    • date: 2010-11-09T00:00:00 body: EP committees: body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: KASOULIDES Ioannis group: S&D name: NEUSER Norbert group: Verts/ALE name: KIIL-NIELSEN Nicole group: ECR name: VAN ORDEN Geoffrey group: GUE/NGL name: MEYER Willy responsible: True committee_full: Foreign Affairs committee: AFET body: EP responsible: False committee: DEVE date: 2010-02-04T00:00:00 committee_full: Development rapporteur: group: ALDE name: GOERENS Charles type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
    • date: 2010-11-22T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2010-333&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A7-0333/2010 body: EP type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
    • body: CSL meeting_id: 3058 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=3058*&MEET_DATE=13/12/2010 type: Debate in Council title: 3058 council: Foreign Affairs date: 2010-12-13T00:00:00 type: Council Meeting
    • date: 2010-12-15T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20101215&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
    • date: 2010-12-16T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=19121&l=en type: Results of vote in Parliament title: Results of vote in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2010-490 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T7-0490/2010 body: EP type: Results of vote in Parliament
    commission
    • body: EC dg: External Relations commissioner: ASHTON Catherine
    committees/0
    type
    Responsible Committee
    body
    EP
    associated
    False
    committee_full
    Foreign Affairs
    committee
    AFET
    date
    shadows
    committees/0
    body
    EP
    shadows
    responsible
    True
    committee_full
    Foreign Affairs
    committee
    AFET
    committees/1
    type
    Committee Opinion
    body
    EP
    associated
    False
    committee_full
    Development
    committee
    DEVE
    date
    2010-02-04T00:00:00
    rapporteur
    name: GOERENS Charles group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
    committees/1
    body
    EP
    responsible
    False
    committee
    DEVE
    date
    2010-02-04T00:00:00
    committee_full
    Development
    rapporteur
    group: ALDE name: GOERENS Charles
    council
    • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Foreign Affairs meeting_id: 3058 url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=3058*&MEET_DATE=13/12/2010 date: 2010-12-13T00:00:00
    • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: General Affairs meeting_id: 3009 url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=3009*&MEET_DATE=26/04/2010 date: 2010-04-26T00:00:00
    • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: General Affairs meeting_id: 3005 url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=3005*&MEET_DATE=22/03/2010 date: 2010-03-22T00:00:00
    • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: General Affairs meeting_id: 2992 url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2992*&MEET_DATE=25/01/2010 date: 2010-01-25T00:00:00
    docs
    • date: 2010-05-11T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE439.973&secondRef=02 title: PE439.973 committee: DEVE type: Committee opinion body: EP
    • date: 2010-07-13T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE440.141 title: PE440.141 type: Committee draft report body: EP
    • date: 2010-10-07T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE445.614 title: PE445.614 type: Amendments tabled in committee body: EP
    • date: 2010-11-22T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2010-333&language=EN title: A7-0333/2010 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading body: EP
    • date: 2011-05-06T00:00:00 docs: url: /oeil/spdoc.do?i=19121&j=0&l=en title: SP(2011)1737 type: Commission response to text adopted in plenary
    events
    • date: 2009-12-17T00:00:00 type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
    • date: 2010-01-25T00:00:00 type: Debate in Council body: CSL docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2992*&MEET_DATE=25/01/2010 title: 2992 summary: The Foreign Affairs Council, chaired by the High Representative, Catherine Ashton, led a discussion on the situation in Afghanistan ahead of the London Conference on Afghanistan on 28 January 2010. At this conference the international community is expected to renew its commitment to Afghanistan following the presidential election earlier in the year. The High Representative emphasised the EU's solidarity with its international partners in the drive to focus attention on efforts to help the Afghan government take greater responsibility for making the country secure. The Union is enhancing its engagement under an Action Plan adopted last October. In addition, the EU Police Mission in Afghanistan will continue to contribute to the long-term sustainability of police reform in Afghanistan.
    • date: 2010-03-22T00:00:00 type: Resolution/conclusions adopted by Council body: CSL summary: The Council discussed developments in Afghanistan and EU efforts on the ground on the basis of the EU's 2009 Action Plan for Enhanced Engagement in Afghanistan and Pakistan in the presence of the EU's new single representative for Afghanistan, Mr Vygaudas Usackas who takes office from 1 April 2010. The Council adopted the following conclusions: the appointment of Mr Usackas as both the Special Representative of the EU and Head of the EU Delegation in Kabul is a further step to strengthen coordinated EU action on the ground, working in close cooperation with other international actors. EU efforts will be spearheaded under Mr Usackas' leadership. He will guide the implementation of the Action Plan , in close cooperation with Member States' representatives in Kabul. The Council expressed sincere appreciation to outgoing EU Special Representative, Ettore Sequi, and outgoing Head of the EU Delegation, Hansjorg Kretschmer, for their outstanding work over the past years; it reiterated that the internal security situation remained a direct challenge to the stability of Afghanistan. The Council underlined its continued support for international civilian efforts in Afghanistan, emphasising the central coordination role of UNAMA and reaffirming its support for the UN mandate and the objectives of ISAF. The key to delivering the civilian efforts will be enhanced coordination and the development of a coherent approach between all major civilian actors, notably the EU Special Representative, the Special Representative of the UN Secretary General and the NATO Senior Civilian Representative, under the leadership of the Government of Afghanistan. The Council underlined the importance of Afghan ownership and leadership ; it emphasised its support for the outcomes of the London Conference of 28 January 2010 and reiterated that all efforts must now focus on implementing the commitments made there, including with regards to the announced Peace and Reintegration Trust Fund to finance the Afghan-led Peace and Reintegration Programme. The Council underlined the significance of balanced, Afghan-led reconciliation and reintegration processes as key elements of a sustainable political solution in Afghanistan. In this respect, it welcomed the organisation of a Peace Jirga, scheduled to take place this Spring. It also welcomed recent contacts between leaders in the region aimed at confidence building. It looks forward to a second successful ad hoc Summit between the EU and Pakistan on 21 April 2010; the Council discussed the Kabul Conference , which should follow up the commitments made in London. The Kabul Conference will provide an opportunity for the Afghan Government to chart the way forward, notably on anti-corruption, reinforced security, effective and impartial governance, economic and social development, human rights and improved electoral processes. The EU expects that the Government of Afghanistan will act swiftly and decisively to deliver on the promises made to its people. Through its Action Plan, the EU in cooperation with UNAMA and other international partners, continues to provide long-term assistance to Afghanistan in institution building and civilian capacity programmes, including at sub-national level. The Council expects to discuss a first report on the progress of implementation of the Action Plan next month; the Council stressed the importance of credible, inclusive and secure parliamentary elections in Afghanistan reflecting the will of the people. Recalling the recommendations of the EU Election Observation Mission to the Presidential Elections of 2009 and the commitments made at the London Conference to ensure the integrity of the elections, the Council urged the Government of Afghanistan to proceed without further delay with reforms to the electoral process to safeguard the impartiality, independence and integrity of the electoral institutions, notably the Independent Election Commission and the Electoral Complaints Commission, in close cooperation with the SRSG of the UN. The Council emphasised that only structural reforms will make any support extended to the electoral process by the international community fully effective. The Council will continue to follow closely preparations for the upcoming parliamentary elections.
    • date: 2010-04-26T00:00:00 type: Debate in Council body: CSL docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=3009*&MEET_DATE=26/04/2010 title: 3009 summary: The Council, in a joint session of foreign and defence ministers, discussed the way forward on the implementation of the EU Action Plan for Enhanced Engagement in Afghanistan and Pakistan and took note of the first six-monthly implementation report. They were joined by the Secretary-General of NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, for an informal discussion on military and civilian cooperation on and prospects for further EU - NATO cooperation in Afghanistan.
    • date: 2010-11-09T00:00:00 type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading body: EP summary: The Committee on Foreign Affairs adopted an own-initiative report by Pino ARLACCHI (S&D, IT) on a new strategy for Afghanistan. Members believe that the EU strategy for Afghanistan should have to take as its starting point two premise s: an acknowledgement of the continuing deterioration in security and socio-economic indicators in Afghanistan despite almost a decade of international involvement and investment; and the need to further encourage the shift in the mindset of the international community so that in future its plans and decisions are shaped in close cooperation with the Afghans. Members stress that any long-term solution to the Afghan crisis has to start from the resolution of the problems relating to internal security, civil protection and economic and social development. In this context, concrete measures need to be taken for the eradication of poverty, under-development and discrimination against women, for enhancing respect for human rights and the rule of law, strengthening reconciliation mechanisms, ensuring an end to opium production, engaging in a robust state-building exercise, as well as banishing Al-Quaeda from the country. They reiterate that the EU and its Member States should support Afghanistan in the reconstruction of its own state, with stronger democratic institutions capable of ensuring national sovereignty, security based on a democratically accountable army and police, a competent and independent judiciary, state unity, territorial integrity, equality between men and women, media freedom, an emphasis on education and health, sustainable economic development and the prosperity of the people of Afghanistan, and respect for the historical, religious, spiritual and cultural traditions and rights of all communities on Afghan territory. To create a dynamic in Afghanistan, members support the idea of a special long-term flagship programme focusing on priorities identified by the Afghans themselves. Members stress the need to ensure a sustainable improvement in women’s lives by ensuring they can enjoy full fundamental, political, civil and social rights, protection against the fundamentalists and any other discriminatory practices. There is also a need to increase the level of funding and political and technical support for policies to improve the situation of Afghan women. On the political level, Members note that the parliamentary elections on 18 September 2010 were marred by fraud and violence and that many Afghans have been prevented from exercising their fundamental right to vote. They also deplore the irregularities in the country’s judicial processes and the continued existence of the death penalty. The report also stresses the need for fundamental reforms in the country. These should focus on the following four main areas: i) international aid and coordination; ii) the implications of the peace process; iii) the impact of police training; and iv) the elimination of opium cultivation through alternative development. The committee’s proposal on these areas are as follows: 1) International aid – use and abuse: Members recall that the combined EU (European Community and Member States) budget for aid to Afghanistan for the period 2002-2010 totalled around EUR 8 billion. However, despite the huge injections of foreign aid, the situation in Afghanistan continues to be discouraging and, since 2004, the number of people living below the poverty threshold has increased by 130%. Measures such as the following need to be taken: strengthening of the transparency and accountability of financial assistance granted to the Afghan government, to local and international NGOs; humanitarian aid to be distributed on a geographically more homogenous basis, in the light of an analysis of needs and in keeping with the requirement for urgency; combating of corruption since it is an obstacle in terms of access to basic public services, such as health and education, and represents a huge impediment to the country’s socio-economic development (only USD 6 billion (or 15%) out of a total of USD 40 billion in aid actually reached the Afghan Government between 2002 and 2009, and that, of the remaining USD 34 billion, which was channelled through international organisations, regional development banks, NGOs, international contractors, etc., between 70% and 80% never reached the intended beneficiaries); strengthening of the coordination between donor countries and provide for detailed evaluations of European and international aid; setting up a centralised database on, and to analyse the costs and impact of, all EU aid to Afghanistan; pruning drastically the operating expenses of humanitarian and development bodies active in Afghanistan whereby the EU in allocating funds to concrete projects implemented in real and balanced partnership with Afghan institutions; improving the coordination of reconstruction and development efforts at regional level in order to promote cross-border development; carrying out of an evaluation of the relative impact of EU measures on the overall situation in the country and of the level of coordination and cooperation between EU bodies and other international missions and measures. Overall, Members call for aid to Afghanistan to be dispatched directly to the population in Afghanistan immediately affected . In this regard, impartial humanitarian bodies should be responsible for the distribution of aid in the country and military personnel should be involved only in entirely exceptional circumstances. They stress that the deployment of Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) in reconstruction and/or development-aid activities is inappropriate since the distinction between civilian development-aid workers and the military is thereby blurred. They also note that the decision to place the US military supply chain in private hands and are appalled that protection money and extortion at every level of the military supply chain constitute the most significant source of funding for the insurgency. They are equally appalled by the fact that the full traceability of EU financial contributions might not be fully guaranteed in all cases. 2) The peace process: recalling the absolute necessity for good governance in Afghanistan, Members calls for fundamental judicial reform in the country. They consider that that much of the blame for the present stalemate in Afghanistan rests with early miscalculations made prior to the new counter-insurgency strategy by coalition forces who foresaw a speedy military victory over the Taliban and an easy transition to a stable country run by a legitimate government with strong Western backing. They believe that the presence of the Taliban was underestimated and the ability of the Karzai government to provide governance overestimated, and that, as a result, little attention was paid to the task of rebuilding and developing the country. In this context, they call for new measures to be taken which may be summarised as follows: promote a transition using an approach that is more civil and less military; favour a political approach involving negotiations with the Taliban and other combatant groups, as well as other political players in the country who are ready to participate in a government of national unity capable of putting an end to the war; banish from the country Al-Qaeda and its promotion of international terrorism, as well as any other terrorist group; action to eliminate poppy cultivation. Members also note the complexity of the conflict and the key role played by Pakistan in this regard. They condemn in the strongest terms the involvement of the Pakistan Intelligence Service (ISI) with the insurgency, its intention being to make sure that Pakistan, too, gets a satisfactory outcome from any peace dividend. They stress, however, that for peace to be allowed to take root in Afghanistan political deals among key regional powers, including India, Pakistan, Iran and the Central Asian States, Russia, China and Turkey will be required, and a common position of non-interference and support for an independent Afghanistan. They also calls for normalisation of the relationship between Afghanistan and Pakistan, namely through a final settlement on the issue of the international border between the two countries. In parallel, Members call for a much more active EU role in the reconstruction and development of Afghanistan. Working with the Member States and the United States, this should channel more of the international aid effort through domestic authorities and the Kabul government. It should also encourage the US to move away from its policy of circumventing domestic institutions in the delivery of international aid and the use of US Special Forces and local militias, such approaches being of questionable legal status. 3) Police and the rule of law : Members stress that Afghanistan must be provided with an efficient police force and an autonomous army capable of ensuring security so as to permit a subsequent withdrawal of the foreign military presence from the country. They recognise, however, that having self-sustaining security forces is a somewhat long-term goal. There is a particular need for a more coordinated and integrated approach in the training of police, as well as, separately, the training of army officers, and for closer coordination of their work in order to avoid unnecessary duplication. Several measures are proposed: a comprehensive reform of the Interior Ministry; strengthening of the mandate of EUPOL; more coherent and sustainable training of the police by focussing in particular on literacy programmes for recruits; an immediate end to police training by private contractors; the introduction of a large-scale police training programme launched by EUPOL and NATO/ISAF; increase significantly the number of police trainers on the ground so that the objective of the London Conference to reach 134 000 trained Afghan police officers by the end of 2011 becomes a realistic scenario, and, in this context, merge Member States’ bilateral police training missions with that of EUPOL; give preference to recruits with a basic standard of literacy who are not drug users and are better qualified psychologically and physically than the present cohort. Members stress that police training cannot deliver without a properly functioning judiciary. It is, therefore, necessary to provide increased financial and technical support to strengthen the judicial system, including an increase in the salary of judges at all levels and the putting in place, in coordination with the UN, of a specialised mission to train judges, as well as public officials in the Afghan Ministry of Justice and the penal system. 4) Narcotics: Members point out that Afghanistan is the source of 90% of the world’s illicit opium, and yet that when coalition forces entered Kabul, in 2001, no opium poppies were being grown in Afghanistan owing to the UN’s success in achieving a ban on their cultivation. As a result of the impunity given to growers and traffickers, within two years, cultivation reached pre-2001 levels. According to Members, a large, well-resourced military force should, subsequently, have found it easy to sustain this opium-free situation through local agricultural development projects, protected by its troops against the Taliban and local warlords. They note, however, that opium production is still a key social, economic and security issue, and calls on the EU to consider this as a strategic priority in its policies towards Afghanistan. Members also point out that more than 90% of heroin in Europe originates from Afghanistan and that the cost to public health in European countries runs into billions of dollars. They emphasise that the challenges posed by the drug economy in Afghanistan must be tackled not only nationally but internationally by addressing all links in the drug chain and that this requires, in particular: assistance to farmers to reduce supply; drug prevention and treatment to curb demand; law enforcement against the intermediaries; massive investment in the establishment of a comprehensive agricultural and rural policy to offer opium producers a credible, lasting alternative; targeted measures to reduce the number of drug addicts in Afghanistan itself. Members point out that, in 2009 trade in narcotics totalled USD 3.4 billion and the potential gross export value of opium was 26% of Afghanistan’s GDP. They indicate that the Taliban net only 4% of the profits from the annual narcotics trade, and local farmers 21%, with 75% going to government officials, the police, local and regional brokers, and traffickers. It notes, in short, that NATO’s Afghan allies are in fact getting the lion’s share of the profits from the drugs trade . Members recall that, between 2001 and 2009, the US and the international community spent USD 1.61 billion on counter-narcotics measures without having any significant impact on production and trafficking. They point out that, unless the dependence of the Afghan economy on drugs is ended once and for all and a viable alternative economic growth model found, the goals of restoring security and stability to the region will not be achieved. They call for other sources of viable revenue to be made available to the 3.4 million Afghans who make their living from opium poppy cultivation, such as saffron or pomegranates, which deliver a much higher income than opium poppies. They consider that, as in Pakistan, Laos and Thailand, a similar process of phasing out opium poppy cultivation could be envisaged for Afghanistan at a cost of EUR 100 million per year by specifically earmarking 10% of the EU’s annual aid to the country for a period of five years. They call for a five-year national plan for the elimination of illicit opium crops , promoted through cooperation between the EU and the Russian Federation, the latter being the major victim of Afghan heroin. To conclude, Members call on the Council and the Commission to incorporate this proposed strategy fully into their existing strategies and to take the proposal fully into account within their own national plans and to take full account of all the budgetary implications of the proposals contained in this report.
    • date: 2010-11-22T00:00:00 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2010-333&language=EN title: A7-0333/2010
    • date: 2010-12-13T00:00:00 type: Debate in Council body: CSL docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=3058*&MEET_DATE=13/12/2010 title: 3058 summary: Following the discussion by development ministers of 9 December 2010 on the EU-Afghanistan strategy, the Council exchanged views on the political situation in Afghanistan after the elections. It underlined the EU's commitment and the need for long-term engagement, expressing appreciation for the work of EU Special Representative Vygaudas Ušackas. It looked at the specific areas where the EU can apply its strengths: justice sector, human and notably women's rights, civil service reform; electoral reform; police reform - with EUPOL Afghanistan playing an important role - as the main priorities.
    • date: 2010-12-15T00:00:00 type: Debate in Parliament body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20101215&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
    • date: 2010-12-16T00:00:00 type: Results of vote in Parliament body: EP docs: url: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=19121&l=en title: Results of vote in Parliament
    • date: 2010-12-16T00:00:00 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2010-490 title: T7-0490/2010 summary: The European Parliament adopted a resolution on a new strategy for Afghanistan. It believes that the EU strategy for Afghanistan should have to take as its starting point two premises : an acknowledgement of the continuing deterioration in security and socio-economic indicators in Afghanistan despite almost a decade of international involvement and investment; and the need to further encourage the shift in the mindset of the international community so that in future its plans and decisions are shaped in close cooperation with the Afghans. Parliament stresses that any long-term solution to the Afghan crisis has to start from the resolution of the problems relating to internal security, civil protection and economic and social development. Members are aware of the set of factors hampering progress in Afghanistan but has chosen to focus on four main areas where, it believes, efforts expended could result in improvements: international aid and coordination; the implications of the peace process; the impact of police training; and the elimination of opium cultivation through alternative development. Parliament reiterates that the EU and its Member States should support Afghanistan in the reconstruction of its own state, with stronger democratic institutions capable of ensuring national sovereignty, security based on a democratically accountable army and police, a competent and independent judiciary, state unity, territorial integrity, equality between men and women, media freedom, an emphasis on education and health, sustainable economic development and the prosperity of the people of Afghanistan, and respect for the historical, religious, spiritual and cultural traditions and rights of all communities on Afghan territory. To create a dynamic in Afghanistan, Parliament supports the idea of a special long-term flagship programme focusing on priorities identified by the Afghans themselves. It stresses the need to ensure a sustainable improvement in women’s lives by ensuring they can enjoy full fundamental, political, civil and social rights, protection against the fundamentalists and any other discriminatory practices. There is also a need to increase the level of funding and political and technical support for policies to improve the situation of Afghan women. On the political level , the resolution notes that the parliamentary elections on 18 September 2010 were marred by fraud and violence and that many Afghans have been prevented from exercising their fundamental right to vote. Parliament also deplores the irregularities in the country’s judicial processes and the continued existence of the death penalty. As regards the four main areas, Parliament outlines the following: 1) International aid – use and abuse: the resolution recalls that the combined EU (European Community and Member States) budget for aid to Afghanistan for the period 2002-2010 totalled around EUR 8 billion. However, despite the huge injections of foreign aid, the situation in Afghanistan continues to be discouraging and, since 2004, the number of people living below the poverty threshold has increased by 130%. It acknowledges the widespread perception that Afghan Government corruption is solely responsible for the lack of provision of essential services to citizens, but also notes that the majority of resources for socio-economic development have been channelled through international organisations (regional development banks, NGOs, etc). Parliament condemns the fact that a significant proportion of European and other international aid money is lost along the distribution chain and draws attention to the four main ways in which this happens: waste, excessive intermediary and security costs, overbilling and corruption. Measures such as the following need to be taken: strengthening of the transparency and accountability of financial assistance granted to the Afghan government, to local and international NGOs; humanitarian aid to be distributed on a geographically more homogenous basis, in the light of an analysis of needs and in keeping with the requirement for urgency; combating of corruption since it is an obstacle in terms of access to basic public services, such as health and education, and represents a huge impediment to the country’s socio-economic development (only USD 6 billion (or 15%) out of a total of USD 40 billion in aid actually reached the Afghan Government between 2002 and 2009, and that, of the remaining USD 34 billion, which was channelled through international organisations, regional development banks, NGOs, international contractors, etc., between 70% and 80% never reached the intended beneficiaries). Parliament notes the decision taken at the Kabul Conference that 50% of the international aid should be channelled through the Afghan national budget by 2012, in accordance with Afghanistan's request; strengthening of the coordination between donor countries and provide for detailed evaluations of European and international aid; setting up a centralised database on, and to analyse the costs and impact of, all EU aid to Afghanistan; pruning drastically the operating expenses of humanitarian and development bodies active in Afghanistan whereby the EU in allocating funds to concrete projects implemented in real and balanced partnership with Afghan institutions. Overall, Parliament calls for aid to Afghanistan to be dispatched directly to the population in Afghanistan immediately affected . In this regard, impartial humanitarian bodies should be responsible for the distribution of aid in the country and military personnel should be involved only in entirely exceptional circumstances. Contrary to the committee responsible’s opinion, Plenary reject the idea that the deployment of Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) in reconstruction and/or development-aid activities is inappropriate. Parliament draws attention to the huge cost of the war prosecuted in Afghanistan between 2001 and 2009, estimated at over USD 300 billion and equivalent to more than 20 times Afghanistan's GDP. It also notes that the decision to place the US military supply chain in private hands without any reliable criteria for assuring accountability, transparency and legality is fuelling extortion and corruption, as warlords, local mafia bosses and ultimately Taliban commanders end up taking a significant share of the USD 2.2-3 billion business of military logistics in Afghanistan. 2) The peace process: recalling the absolute necessity for good governance in Afghanistan, Parliament calls for fundamental judicial reform in the country. It considers that that much of the blame for the present stalemate in Afghanistan rests with early miscalculations made prior to the new counter-insurgency strategy by coalition forces who foresaw a speedy military victory over the Taliban and an easy transition to a stable country run by a legitimate government with strong Western backing. It believes that the presence of the Taliban was underestimated and the ability of the Karzai government to provide governance overestimated, and that, as a result, little attention was paid to the task of rebuilding and developing the country. In this context, they call for new measures to be taken which may be summarised as follows: promote a transition using an approach that is more civil and less military; favour a political approach involving negotiations with the Taliban and other combatant groups, as well as other political players in the country who are ready to participate in a government of national unity capable of putting an end to the war; banish from the country Al-Qaeda and its promotion of international terrorism, as well as any other terrorist group; action to eliminate poppy cultivation. Parliament notes the complexity of the conflict and the key role Pakistan plays in this context. Plenary also notes the involvement of the Pakistan Intelligence Service (ISI) aimed at making sure that Pakistan, too, gets a satisfactory outcome from any peace dividend. Parliament stresses, however, that for peace to be allowed to take root in Afghanistan political deals among key regional powers, including India, Pakistan, Iran and the Central Asian States, Russia, China and Turkey will be required, and a common position of non-interference and support for an independent Afghanistan. It also calls for normalisation of the relationship between Afghanistan and Pakistan, namely through a final settlement on the issue of the international border between the two countries. In parallel, Members call for a much more active EU role in the reconstruction and development of Afghanistan. In an oral amendment adopted in plenary, Parliament urges the EU and its Member States to work together with the United States to channel more of the international aid effort through domestic authorities and the Kabul Government, and to ensure that drones, special forces and local militias against Taliban leaders are used according to General Petraeus’ orders for zero tolerance on the loss of innocent civilians’ lives. Plenary pays tribute to the servicemen and women of all the Allied Forces who have lost their lives in defending freedom, and expresses its condolences to their families, as well as to the families of all innocent Afghan victims. Members recall that the US has stated that it will start to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan in summer 2011, other countries have either already withdrawn or are making plans to do so, and others still have not indicated an intention to withdraw; whereas, however, the withdrawal of the military has to be a gradual and coordinated process in the framework of a political project that guarantees a smooth transition of responsibility to the Afghan security forces. 3) Police and the rule of law: Parliament stresses that Afghanistan must be provided with an efficient police force and an autonomous army capable of ensuring security so as to permit a subsequent withdrawal of the foreign military presence from the country. It recognises, however, that having self-sustaining security forces is a somewhat long-term goal. There is a particular need for a more coordinated and integrated approach in the training of police, as well as, separately, the training of army officers, and for closer coordination of their work in order to avoid unnecessary duplication. Several measures are proposed: a comprehensive reform of the Interior Ministry; strengthening of the mandate of EUPOL; more coherent and sustainable training of the police by focussing in particular on literacy programmes for recruits; an immediate end to police training by private contractors; the introduction of a large-scale police training programme launched by EUPOL and NATO/ISAF; increase significantly the number of police trainers on the ground so that the objective of the London Conference to reach 134 000 trained Afghan police officers by the end of 2011 becomes a realistic scenario, and, in this context, merge Member States’ bilateral police training missions with that of EUPOL; give preference to recruits with a basic standard of literacy who are not drug users and are better qualified psychologically and physically than the present cohort. The resolution stresses that police training cannot deliver without a properly functioning judiciary. It is, therefore, necessary to provide increased financial and technical support to strengthen the judicial system, including an increase in the salary of judges at all levels and the putting in place, in coordination with the UN, of a specialised mission to train judges, as well as public officials in the Afghan Ministry of Justice and the penal system. 4) Narcotics: Parliament points out that Afghanistan is the source of 90% of the world’s illicit opium , and yet that when coalition forces entered Kabul, in 2001, no opium poppies were being grown in Afghanistan owing to the UN’s success in achieving a ban on their cultivation. As a result of the impunity given to growers and traffickers, within two years, cultivation reached pre-2001 levels. According to Members, a large, well-resourced military force should, subsequently, have found it easy to sustain this opium-free situation through local agricultural development projects, protected by its troops against the Taliban and local warlords. Members note, however, that opium production is still a key social, economic and security issue, and calls on the EU to consider this as a strategic priority in its policies towards Afghanistan. They also point out that more than 90% of heroin in Europe originates from Afghanistan and that the cost to public health in European countries runs into billions of dollars. They emphasise that the challenges posed by the drug economy in Afghanistan must be tackled not only nationally but internationally by addressing all links in the drug chain and that this requires, in particular: assistance to farmers to reduce supply; drug prevention and treatment to curb demand; law enforcement against the intermediaries; massive investment in the establishment of a comprehensive agricultural and rural policy to offer opium producers a credible, lasting alternative; targeted measures to reduce the number of drug addicts in Afghanistan itself. Members point out that, in 2009 trade in narcotics totalled USD 3.4 billion and the potential gross export value of opium was 26% of Afghanistan’s GDP. They indicate that the Taliban net only 4% of the profits from the annual narcotics trade, and local farmers 21%, with 75% going to government officials, the police, local and regional brokers, and traffickers. It notes, in short, that NATO’s Afghan allies are in fact getting the lion’s share of the profits from the drugs trade . Parliament recalls that, between 2001 and 2009, the US and the international community spent USD 1.61 billion on counter-narcotics measures without having any significant impact on production and trafficking. It points out that, unless the dependence of the Afghan economy on drugs is ended once and for all and a viable alternative economic growth model found, the goals of restoring security and stability to the region will not be achieved. It calls for other sources of viable revenue to be made available to the 3.4 million Afghans who make their living from opium poppy cultivation, such as saffron or pomegranates, which deliver a much higher income than opium poppies. Members consider that, as in Pakistan, Laos and Thailand, a similar process of phasing out opium poppy cultivation could be envisaged for Afghanistan at a cost of EUR 100 million per year by specifically earmarking 10% of the EU’s annual aid to the country for a period of five years. They call for a five-year national plan for the elimination of illicit opium crops , promoted through cooperation between the EU and the Russian Federation, the latter being the major victim of Afghan heroin. The resolution highlights that some poppy eradication in Afghanistan has been carried out using chemical herbicides, and this practice results in serious harm to people and to the environment in terms of soil and water pollution. However, there is now a consensus on the need to concentrate repressive measures on the drug trade and heroin-producing labs, and not on farmers. To conclude, Parliament calls on the Council and the Commission to incorporate this proposed strategy fully into their existing strategies and to take the proposal fully into account within their own national plans and to take full account of all the budgetary implications of the proposals contained in this resolution.
    • date: 2010-12-16T00:00:00 type: End of procedure in Parliament body: EP
    links
    other
    • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Former Council configuration
    • body: EC dg: External Relations commissioner: ASHTON Catherine
    procedure/Modified legal basis
    Old
    Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
    New
    Rules of Procedure EP 150
    procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
    Old
    AFET/7/01583
    New
    • AFET/7/01583
    procedure/legal_basis/0
    Rules of Procedure EP 52
    procedure/legal_basis/0
    Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
    procedure/subject
    Old
    • 6.10.05 Peace preservation, humanitarian and rescue tasks, crisis management
    • 6.40.04.06 Relations with Central Asian countries
    New
    6.10.05
    Peace preservation, humanitarian and rescue tasks, crisis management
    6.40.04.06
    Relations with central Asian countries
    activities
    • date: 2009-12-17T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: KASOULIDES Ioannis group: S&D name: NEUSER Norbert group: Verts/ALE name: KIIL-NIELSEN Nicole group: ECR name: VAN ORDEN Geoffrey group: GUE/NGL name: MEYER Willy responsible: True committee_full: Foreign Affairs committee: AFET body: EP responsible: False committee: DEVE date: 2010-02-04T00:00:00 committee_full: Development rapporteur: group: ALDE name: GOERENS Charles
    • body: CSL meeting_id: 2992 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=2992*&MEET_DATE=25/01/2010 type: Debate in Council title: 2992 council: General Affairs date: 2010-01-25T00:00:00 type: Council Meeting
    • body: CSL meeting_id: 3005 council: General Affairs date: 2010-03-22T00:00:00 type: Council Meeting
    • body: CSL meeting_id: 3009 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=3009*&MEET_DATE=26/04/2010 type: Debate in Council title: 3009 council: General Affairs date: 2010-04-26T00:00:00 type: Council Meeting
    • date: 2010-11-09T00:00:00 body: EP committees: body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: KASOULIDES Ioannis group: S&D name: NEUSER Norbert group: Verts/ALE name: KIIL-NIELSEN Nicole group: ECR name: VAN ORDEN Geoffrey group: GUE/NGL name: MEYER Willy responsible: True committee_full: Foreign Affairs committee: AFET body: EP responsible: False committee: DEVE date: 2010-02-04T00:00:00 committee_full: Development rapporteur: group: ALDE name: GOERENS Charles type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
    • date: 2010-11-22T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2010-333&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A7-0333/2010 body: EP type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
    • body: CSL meeting_id: 3058 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=3058*&MEET_DATE=13/12/2010 type: Debate in Council title: 3058 council: Foreign Affairs date: 2010-12-13T00:00:00 type: Council Meeting
    • date: 2010-12-15T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20101215&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
    • date: 2010-12-16T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=19121&l=en type: Results of vote in Parliament title: Results of vote in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2010-490 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T7-0490/2010 body: EP type: Results of vote in Parliament
    committees
    • body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: KASOULIDES Ioannis group: S&D name: NEUSER Norbert group: Verts/ALE name: KIIL-NIELSEN Nicole group: ECR name: VAN ORDEN Geoffrey group: GUE/NGL name: MEYER Willy responsible: True committee_full: Foreign Affairs committee: AFET
    • body: EP responsible: False committee: DEVE date: 2010-02-04T00:00:00 committee_full: Development rapporteur: group: ALDE name: GOERENS Charles
    links
    other
    • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Former Council configuration
    • body: EC dg: External Relations commissioner: ASHTON Catherine
    procedure
    dossier_of_the_committee
    AFET/7/01583
    geographical_area
    Afghanistan
    reference
    2009/2217(INI)
    title
    New strategy for Afghanistan
    legal_basis
    Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
    stage_reached
    Procedure completed
    subtype
    Initiative
    Modified legal basis
    Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
    type
    INI - Own-initiative procedure
    subject